JAM  5:  e  19/.:  ^ 

♦■■. 

<:*ft-c. , 


ADDRESS 


MINISTERS,  ELDERS,  AND  MEMBERS, 


UNITED  STATES. 


NEW-YORK: 

ROBERT  CARTER,  1 12  CANAL-STREET. 
J.  W.  BELL,  PRINTER,  17  ANN-STREET. 

1836. 


ADDRESS. 


At  a  meeting  of  those  Members  of  the  last  General  Assembly, 
who  had  voted  in  favour  of  the  resolution  introduced  by  Dr.  Miller, 
condemning  the  errors  contained  in  Barnes'  Notes  on  the  Romans, 
held  at  Pittsburgh,  in  May,  1836,  agreeably  to  a  call  through  the 
Moderator,  the  undersigned  were  appointed  a  Committee  to  prepare 
and  circulate  a  suitable  publication  on  the  state  of  the  Church,  and 
particularly  on  the  two  great  subjects  which  had  occupied  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Assembly,  viz :  the  Barnes'  Case,  and  the  Foreign 
Missionary  Question. 

In  accordance  with  our  appointment,  as  well  as  from  a  personal 
conviction  of  duty,  and,  we  trust,  under  a  proper  sense  of  our  high 
responsibility,  we  respectfully  present  the  following  publication  to 
the  candid,  serious,  and  prayerful  consideration  of  the  Ministers, 
Elders,  and  Members  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  these  United 
States. 

As  introductory  to  our  remarks  on  the  topics  to  which  we  shall 
more  especially  direct  your  attention,  we  beg  you  to  indulge  us  in 
two  or  three  general  observations;  and  we  olDserve,  in  the  1st  place, 
that  the  prosperity  of  the  Church,  and  her  efficiency  in  securing  the 
great  objects  of  her  institution,  depend,  under  God,  on  the  purity 
of  her  faith.  The  Divine  glory  can  be  promoted,  and  the  souls  of 
men  saved,  only  through  the  knowledge  and  obedience  of  the  truth; 
Scriptural  views  of  the  perfections  of  Jehovah  ;  of  our  own  condi- 
tion and  character  by  nature  ;  and  of  the  way  of  life  through  Jesus 
Christ,  lie  at  the  foundation  of  all  true  religion  ;  and  hence  the 
many  solemn  injunctions  laid  upon  the  Ambassadors  of  the  Saviour 
to  preach  the  truth  ;  to  declare  the  whole  counsel  of  God,  whether 
men  will  hear  or  whether  they  will  forbear.  Indeed,  if  these  posi- 
tions be  not  correct,  and  if  it  be  a  matter  of  no  moment,  what  are 
the  principles  men  hold,  and  the  views  they  entertain,  it  may  well 
be  questioned,  wherefore  God  should  have  given  us  a  revelation  of 
his  will  at  all — why  reveal  truth,  if  it  is  not  necessary  that  it  should 
be  embraced  1     But  notwithstanding  these  views  should,  as  we 


think,  command  every  man's  approbation,  one  of  the  most  alarm- 
ing- symptoms  of  declension  in  the  Church,  at  the  present  day,  is 
indifference  with  respect  to  the  truth  of  God.  Men  do  not  seem  to 
realize  as  they  ought,  the  importance  of  the  truth  as  Jehovah  has 
revealed  it.  They  pride  themselves  upon  being-  extremely  liberal 
on  this  subject.  They  will  not  quarrel  with  a  man  for  not  believing- 
this  doctrine  and  the  other  doctrine — with  them,  sincerity,  zeal,  and 
an  outwardly  blameless  life,  are  sufficient  evidences  of  piety.  In 
fact,  in  the  hearing  of  many,  to  talk  of  the  importance  of  main- 
taining the  truth  and  order  of  the  Church — of  contending  earnestly 
for  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints,  is  to  incur  their  suspicion 
of  your  zeal  and  devotedness  in  the  cause  of  God,  if  not  to  have 
them  call  in  question  your  personal  religion.  Now  this  surely  can- 
not be  too  much  deplored.  It  is  freely  admitted  that  a  mere  specu- 
lative knowledge  of  the  gospel  is  not  enough.  It  is  admitted,  too, 
that  it  is  good  to  be  zealously  affected  in  a  good  thing  ;  and  that 
there  can  Ije  no  true  religion  without  zeal ;  but  there  may  be  zeal 
without  knowledge,  and  God  crowneth  no  man,  except  he  strive 
lawfully.  Mere  sincerity,  mere  zeal,  are  not  of  themselves  suffi- 
cient. If  they  were,  the  son  of  God  would  never  have  wrought  a 
moral  miracle  in  order  to  change  Saul  of  Tarsus  into  Paul  the 
Apostle  ;  nor  would  that  Apostle  ever  have  uttered  the  language, 
"  Though  we,  or  an  angel  from  heaven,  preach  any  other  gospel 
unto  you,  than  that  which  we  have  preached,  let  him  be  accursed." 
Paul  was  a  man  of  peace  ;  a  man  whose  bosom  burned  with  love  ; 
a  man  zealous  and  untiring  in  his  efforts  for  the  salvation  of  souls ; 
but  with  him,  truth  was  paramount  to  every  thing  else  ;  and  accord- 
ingly he  hesitates  not  a  moment  to  imprecate  the  blasting  curse  of 
God  upon  him  who  should  attempt  to  corrupt  the  pure  gospel  of 
Christ.  The  truth  of  God  then,  we  repeat  it,  accompanied  by  the 
agency  of  his  spirit,  and  not  our  notions  of  it,  nor  our  zeal  in  propa- 
gating these  notions,  is  that  on  which  the  prosperity  of  the  Church, 
and  her  efficiency  in  securing  the  great  objects  of  her  institution, 
depend. 

We  observe  2d — That  to  the  successful  maintainance  of  the  truth 
of  God — to  union  of  effort  in  its  maintainance,  creeds,  confessions 
of  faith,  are  indispensable.  It  is  readily  conceded  that  the  Bible 
is  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice — the  ultimate  stand- 
ard by  which  every  doctrine  and  every  spirit  must  be  tried.  But  it 
is  well  known  that  men  interpret  the  Bible  very  differently,  and 
that  all  the  errorists  that  have  ever  disturbed  the  Cliurch  have  pro- 
fessed to  receive  it  as  their  text-book.  The  Arian,  the  Socinian, 
the  Pelagian,  and  the  Arminian,  if  you  believe  them,  all  find  their 
several  systems  in  the  Bible — so  that  a  simple  profession  of  faith  in 
the  Bible  it  appears  is  a  very  vague  matter  ;  and  something  more 
definite  and  explicit  is  evidently  necessary  to  ascertain  the  religious 
sentiments  of  men.  In  order  to  this,  under  the  circumstances  of 
the  case,  there  must  be  a  resort  to  the  use  of  formularies  containing 


the  leading  and  distiiiguishing  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  expressed  in 
language  easily  understood.  In  no  other  way  amid  the  multiplicity 
of  religious  sects  that  exist,  is  it  possible  to  know  what  are  men's 
views  of  divine  truth  ;  and  in  no  other  way  can  that  harmony  in 
counsel  and  union  in  action  which  are  necessary  to  the  defence  and 
propagation  of  that  truth  be  secured.  Accordingly  the  Church 
has  never  been  without  her  confession  of  faith,  her  avowed  creed. 
In  the  early  ages  of  Christianity,  this  confession,  this  creed,  was 
contained  in  the  declaration,  that  "Jesus  was  the  Christ,  the  Son 
of  God" — a  declaration  including  in  it  much  more  than  meets  the 
eye  of  the  superficial  thinker — including  in  it  tliat  he  was  the 
Messiah,  and  of  course  the  offices  he  sustained,  the  errand  on  which 
he  came,  and  the  condition  of  those  on  whose  behalf  he  appeared ; 
and  in  after  times  and  as  errors  multiplied,  men  of  faith  and  prayer 
seeking  direction  from  on  high,  expanded  their  confession,  their 
acknowledged  creed,  so  as  to  meet  the  exigencies  of  their  day. 
The  Presbyterian  Church  as  such,  has  her  forms  of  doctrine,  her 
confession  of  faitli  and  catechisms,  which  constitute  her  public 
standards.  We  say  notliing  now  of  their  excellence — of  the  cha- 
racter of  those  holy  men  of  God  who  studied,  prayed  and  laboured, 
to  set  in  order  the  truths  which  they  contain  ;  nor  of  the  kind 
providence  of  God  in  preserving  them  so  long,  and  in  permitting 
them  to  be  handed  down  to  us  with  his  marked  blessing  upon  their 
use — we  say  nothing  of  these  things  ;  but  we  would  say,  that  on 
entering  the  Presbyterian  Church,  every  minister  of  the  Gospel  is 
required  solemnly  to  avow  that  the  doctrines  of  these  standards  are 
the  doctrines  which  he  holds  and  approves — be  is  required  to  an- 
swer in  the  affirmative  the  following  among  other  questions,  viz  : — 
"  Do  you  sincerely  receive  and  adopt  the  confession  of  faith  of  this 
Church,  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures  1"  Mark  this  language.  It  is  not  do  you  receive  "  for 
substance  of  doctrine" — "with  considerable  latitude  of  interpreta- 
tion"— the  confession  of  faith  of  this  Church  1  Nor  is  it  do  you 
receive  the  "  system''^  of  doctrine  which  this  confession  teaches  1 
It  is  more  explicit  still — Do  you  sincerely  receive  and  adopt  the  con- 
fession of  faith  of  this  Church  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine 
taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures'?  as  containing  the  accredited  princi- 
ples of  Christianity  arranged  in  systematic  order  according  to  their 
mutual  bearings  and  dependence  1  This  is  the  simple,  naked  ques- 
tion— and  were  all  who  answer  this  question  affirmatively  to  do  so 
in  good  faith,  sincerely  and  candidly,  then  would  the  name  of  Pres- 
byterian be  an  intelligible  and  sufficient  passport  throughout  our 
bounds — then,  would  a  certificate  of  the  fact,  that  an  individual 
had  before  any  Presbytery  in  the  land  received  our  standards,  at 
once  make  us  acquainted  with  his  doctrinal  sentiments,  and  com- 
mend him  to  our  confidence — for  we  should  then  all  "  speak  the 
same  thing,  and  be  perfectly  joined  together  in  the  same  mind  and 
in  the  same  judgment."     But  if,  in  answering  this  question,  men 


are  not  sincere  and  candid — if  when  they  say  they  "  sincerely 
receive  and  adopt  the  confession  of  faith  of  this  Church,"  they 
receive  it  merely  as  a  "  systeni"  distinguished  from,  and  in  prefer- 
ence to  other  systems,  and  reserve  to  themselves  the  right  of  con- 
struing its  language  to  mean  something  different  from  that  which 
it  has  been  uniformly  understood  to  mean,  then  it  is  plain  that  we 
have  no  common  standards — no  bond  of  union — and  that  it  is  impos- 
sible to  know  what  are  the  doctrines  held  by  those  who  are  nomi- 
nally connected  with  us ;  which  leads  to  our  3d  general  observa- 
tion, viz  : — That  creeds,  confessions  of  faith,  to  answer  their  true 
and  legitimate  purpose,  must  be  honestly  received.  And  here  we 
are  constrained  to  believe  is  one  fruitful  source  of  our  present  dis- 
tractions as  a  Church,  a  lack  of  honesty  in  the  reception  of  our 
standards.  Some  examine  these  standards  with  care — they 
compare  them  with  the  scriptures  of  truth  on  which  they  profess 
to  be  founded — they  scan  narrowly  the  language  used  in  them, 
and  having  done  so,  they  sincerely  receive  and  adopt  all  the  doc- 
trines they  contain.  Without  laying  any  claim  to  infalhbility,  or 
pretending  to  judge  those  who  may  differ  from  them,  they  proclaim 
to  the  world  that  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  this  Church  is  their 
confession  of  faith.  Tliey  feel  themselves  solemnly  bound,  as  by 
an  oath,  to  adhere  to  this  form  of  sound  words,  and  to  publish  no 
doctrines  either  inconsistent  or  at  variance  with  it,  Tliis  course 
they  pursue  as  honest  men  ;  and  they  are  encouraged  the  rather  to 
pursue  it,  because  they  find  that  all  the  boasted  discoveries  of  new 
light — all  the  improvements  in  Theology  so  much  talked  of  as  cor- 
responding with  the  improvements  of  the  age,  are,  in  reality,  only 
the  dark  visions  and  exploded  theories  of  former  centuries.  And, 
because,  moreover,  they  find  that  no  sooner  are  the  men  who  have 
published  these  discoveries  and  improvements,  and,  in  consequence, 
have  trumpeted  themselves  abroad  as  far  in  advance  of  their  gene- 
ration, arraigned  for  the  errors  they  have  promulged,  than  they 
immediately  turn  round  and  plead  that  they  have  taught  nothing 
new,  and  undertake  to  defend  themselves  by  quoting  the  standard 
writers  of  former  centuries.  There  are  others,  however,  who  view 
this  matter  in  a  very  different  light,  and  who  act  a  very  different 
part.  Although  they  have  professed  to  receive  our  standards  in 
the  same  manner  with  the  class  just  referred  to,  tliey  do  not  consider 
themselves  bound  by  that  act  to  receive  all  the  doctrines  contained 
in  them  ;  nor  to  construe  the  language  in  which  they  are 
expressed,  in  the  sense  in  which  it  was  manifestly  employed 
by  those  who  framed  them.  Their  independent  and  gigantic 
minds  are  not  to  be  trammelled  by  frame-works  of  faith  that 
men  have  invented,  and  without  any  regard  to  the  solemn  vows 
which  they  have  voluntarily  come  under,  they  publish  to  the 
world  their  unhallowed  speculations — their  crude  and  undigested 
theories.  Instead  of  withdrawing  in  a  peaceable  and  orderly  man- 
ner from  a  Church  whose  formularies  they  have  never  honestly 


adopted,  they  remain  to  destroy  its  unity  and  interrupt  its  harmony. 
Under  tire  name  and  cloak  of  Presbyterianism  they  disseminate 
sentiments  whicli  lead  directly  to  Armhiianism,  Pelagianism 
and  Socinianism.  These  are  the  men  who,  in  our  judgment,  have 
caused  divisions  among  us — for  we  are  a  divided  Church — as  really 
divided  as  though  we  were  called  by  different  names  and  existed 
under  different  organizations.  The  sclnsmhas  come  already,  and  let 
those  men  who  have  come  into  our  Church  by  professing  to  receive 
our  standards,  when,  in  fact,  they  did  not  believe  them  in  their  plain 
and  obvious  import,  answer  for  it — for  they  are  its  authors.  These 
remarks,  it  is  painful,  exceedingly  painful,  for  us  to  make,  but  we  are 
persuaded  they  are  well  founded.  If  any  think  them  severe,  it  is  our 
conscientious  conviction,  it  is  only  the  severity  of  truth ;  and  we  ear- 
nestly entreat  those  to  whom  they  apply,  to  look  calmly  at  this 
matter — to  ask  themselves  whether  the  conduct  which  we  charge, 
would  not,  in  the  case  of  worldly  men,  and  in  reference  to  associa- 
tions for  mere  secular  purposes,  draw  down  the  sternest  rebuke  of 
every  man  of  integrity  and  honour. 

Without  any  further  general  observations  we  proceed  to  the  two 
great  subjects  mentioned  at  the  commencement  of  this  address,  and 
1st,  the  "  Barnes'  Case,"  as  it  is  termed.  It  will  be  necessary  to 
glance  for  a  moment  at  the  history  of  this  case.  In  1830,  the  Rev. 
Albert  Barnes,  being  then  a  member  of  the  Presbytery  of  Elizabeth- 
town,  and  Pastor  of  the  Church  in  Morristown,  New  Jersey,  pub- 
lished a  sermon  styled  "  The  Way  of  Salvation."  Shortly  after 
this,  he  (Mr.  B.)  received  a  call  to  become  the  Pastor  of  the  First 
Presbyterian  Church  in  Philadelphia.  In'consequence  of  the  errors 
contained  in  the  sermon  referred  to,  a  minority  of  the  Presbytery 
of  Philadelphia,  to  which  the  Church  calling  Mr.  B.  belonged, 
opposed  the  prosecution  of  the  call.  They  were,  however,  over- 
ruled, the  call  was  forwarded,  put  into  his  hands,  and  accepted  by 
him.  The  minority  then  insisted  on  their  right  to  question  him 
respecting  his  doctrinal  sentiments  previous  to  his  reception  and  in- 
stallation— in  this,  however,  they  were  again  overruled  by  a  majo- 
rity of  the  Presbytery,  and  he  was  received  and  installed.  Of  this 
procedure  on  the  part  of  the  majority,  the  minority  complained  to 
the  Synod,  and  were  heard  before  that  body  at  their  meeting  in 
the  following  autumn,  and  the  result  was,  the  following  resolutions 
were  passed  by  the  Synod  : — 

"  1.  Resolved,  That  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  in  not  allowing  the  examination 
of  Mr.  Barnes,  in  connexion  with  his  printed  sennon,  previously  to  his  reception  as  a 
member  of  Presbytery,  and  especially  before  his  installation  as  pastor  of  the  first 
Presbyterian  Church,  gave  just  ground  of  complaint  to  the  minority. 

"  2.  Resolved,  That  the  complainants  be  referred  back  to  the  Presbytery  of  which 
they  are  members,  with  an  injunction  to  that  Presbytery,  to  hear  and  decide  on  their 
objections  to  the  orthodoxy  ot  the  sermon  of  Mr.  Barnes,  and  to  take  such  order  on  the 
whole  subject,  as  is  required  by  a  regard  to  the  purity  of  the  church,  and  its  acknow- 
ledged doctrines  and  order." 

Subsequently  to  this  decision  of  the  Synod,  the  minority  in  the 


-   8 

Presbytery  became  the  majority — a  special  meeting  was  called  to 
comply  with  the  order  of  Synod — and  the  following  decision  was 
had  .— 

"  The  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  agreeably  to  the  direction  of  the  Synod  at  their 
meeting  in  Lancaster,  having  considered  the  sermon  of  the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes, 
entitled  the  '  Way  of  Salvation,'  are  of  the  opinion  that  it  contains  speculations  of 
dangerous  tendency,  on  some  of  the  principal  points  in  Christian  th(,>ology,  and  ought 
notj^^therefore,  to  be  sanctioned  as  expressing  that  view  of  the  great  truths  of  God's 
word,  which  the  Presbyterian  Church  has  uniformly  adopted,  and  which  is  exhibited  in 
their  authorized  Confession  of  Faith. 

"  In  stating  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  the  author  employs  a  phraseology  which  i3 
calculated  to  mislead,  and  which  appears  evidently  to  conflict  with  the  spirit  and  letter 
of  the  standards  of  tlio  Presbyterian  Church. 

"1.  He  denies  that  the  posterity  of  Adam  are  responsible  or  answerable  for  Adam's 
first  sin,  which  he  committed  as  the  federal  head  of  his  race.  Thus,  p.  6,  'Christian- 
ity does  not  charge  on  men  crimes  of  which  tliey  are  not  guilty.  It  does  not  say,  as  I 
suppose,  that  the  sinner  is  held  to  be  personally  answerable  for  the  transgressions  of  Adam, 
or  of  any  other  man.'' 

"  Although  the  word  transgressions  is  here  used  plurally,  yet  it  is  evident  from  the 
whole  tenor  of  this  division  of  the  discourse,  that  the  prime  sin  of  Adam,  which 
constituted  his  apostacy  from  God,  is  meant.  Again,  he  says,  p.  7,  'Neither  the 
facts,  nor  any  proper  inference  from  the  facts  affirm,  that  I  am  in  either  case  personally 
responsible  for  lohat  another  man  (referring  to  Adam)  did  before  I  had  an  existence.^  And 
he  explicitly  declares,  that  if  God  had  charged  upon  mankind  such  a  responsibility,  it 
would  have  been  clearly  unjust,  vide  p.  6.  The  doctrine  of  responsibility  here 
impusned  is  clearly  expressed,  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  vi.  6.  "  Every  sin,  both 
original  and  actual,  being  a  transgression  of  the  righteous  law  of  God  and  contrary 
thereunto,  doth  in  its  own  nature  bring  guilt  upon  the  sinner,  whereby  he  is  bound 
over  to  the  wrath  of  God  and  curse  of  the  law,  and  so  made  subject  to  death,  with  all 
miseries,  spiritual,  temporal  and  eternal. 

"  2.  In  accordance  with  the  above  doctrine,  that  mankind  are  not  responsible  for 
Adam's  sin,  he  affirms,  p.  7,  that  'Christianity  affirms  the  fact,  that  in  connexion 
with  the  sin  of  Adam,  or  as  a  result,  all  nwral  agents  will  sin,  and  sinning  will  die.' 
And  then  proceeds  to  explain  the  principle  upon  which  the  universality  of  sin  is  to  be 
accounted  for,  by  representing  it  to  be  the  result  of  Adam's  sin,  in  the  same  sense,  as 
the  misery  of  a  drunkard's  family  is  the  result  of  his  intemperance.  Here  it  would 
seem,  the  author  maintains  that  the  same  relationship  subsists  between  every  man  and 
his  family,  as  subsisted  between  Adam  and  his  posterity  ;  that  the  same  principle  of 
moral  government  applies  to  both  cases  alike,  or  in  other  words,  that  mankind  hold  no 
other  relationship  to  Adam,  than  that  of  children  to  a  natural  progenitor. 

"  The  public  federal  or  representative  character  of  Adam  is  thus  denied,  contrary  to 
the  explicit  statement  in  the  answer  to  the  22d  duestion  of  Larger  Catecliism.  '  The 
covenant  being  made  with  Adam  as  a  public  person,  not  for  himself  only,  but  for  his 
posterity ;  all  mankind  descending  from  him  by  ordinary  generation  sinned  in  him, 
and  fell  with  him,  in  that  first  transgression.' 

"  3.  He  declares,  p.  7,  that  'the  notion  of  imputing  sin  is  an  invention  of  modern 
times,'  contrary  to  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  vi.  3,  '  They  being  the  root  of  all  man- 
kind, the  guilt  of  this  sin  was  imputed,  and  the  same  death  in  sin  and  corrupted  nature 
conveyed  to  all  their  posterity,  descending  from  them  by  ordinary  generation.' 

"  4.  In  p.  5,  he  admits  that  his  language  on  the  subject  of  original  sin  differs  from  that 
used  by  the  Confession  of  Faith  on  the  same  subject,  and  then  accounts  for  this 
difference,  on  the  ground  of  the  difficulty  of  affixing  any  clear  and  definite  meaning 
to  the  expression  '  we  sinned  tn  him  and  fell  ivith  him.'  This  expression  he  considers, 
as  far  as  it  is  capable  of  interpretation,  as  '  intended  to  convey  the  idea,  not  that  the 
sin  of  Adam  is  imputed  to  us,  or  set  over  to  our  account,  but  that  there  was  a  personal 
identity  constituted  between  Adam  and  his  posterity,  so  that  it  was  really  oitr  act,  and 
ours  only,  after  all,  that  is  chargeable  on  us.' 

The  whole  of  this  statement  is  exceedingly  incautious  and  improper.  The  language 
of  the  Confession  of  Faith  on  one  of  the  cardinal  doctrines  is  held  up  as  obscure  and 
unintelligible,  or,  if  possessing  any  meaning,  as  expressing  an  absurdity.  The 
framera  of  tliis  confession  are  charged  with  the  absurdity  of  maintabing  the  personal 


identity  between  Adam  and  his  posterity,  when  their  language  conveys  no  more  than 
a  federal  or  representative  relationship.  This  whole  view  of  the  doctrine  of  ori"-inal 
ein,  is,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Presbytery,  obscure,  perplexed,  fruitful  of  dangerous 
consequences,  and  therefore,  censurable. 

"  The  statements  of  this  sermon  on  the  doctrine  of  Atonement,  are  also,  in  the 
opinion  of  Presbytery,  in  some  important  features,  erroneous,  and  contrary  to  the 
orthodox  views. 

"  1.  At  p.  11,  he  says,  'this  atonement  was  for  all  men.  It  was  an  offering  made 
for  the  race.  It  had  not  respect  so  much  to  individuals,  as  to  the  law  and  perfections 
of  God.  It  was  an  opening  of  the  way  of  pardon,  a  making  forgiveness  consistent,  a 
preservation  of  truth,  a  magnifying  of  the  law,  and  had  no  particular  reference  to  any 
class  of  men.' 

"  Here  it  is  denied  that  the  atonement  had  any  special  relation  to  the  elect,  which  it 
had  not  also  to  the  non-elect.  But  if  it  be  true  that  the  atonement  offered  by  Christ, 
had  no  '  respect  to  individuals,'  '  no  particular  reference  to  any  class  of  men,'  upon 
what  principle  can  it  be  regarded  as  a  satisfaction  to  divine  justice  for  the  sins  of  men  ? 
or  in  what  proper  sense  can  Christ  be  considered  as  a  vicarious  sacrifice  ?  unless  the 
atonement  be  a  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  individuals,  upon  what  principle  can  it  open 
the  way  of  pardon,  make  forgiveness  consistent,  preserve  truth  or  magnify  the  law  ? 
The  special  reference  of  the  atonement  to  a  chosen  people,  in  opposition  to  this  view, 
is  taught,  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  viii.  5.  '  The  Lord  Jesus,  by  iiis  perfect  obedience 
and  sacrifice  of  himself,  which  he,  through  the  Eternal  Spirit,  once  offered  up  unto 
God,  hath  fully  satisfied  the  justice  of  his  Father,  and  purchased  not  only  reconciliation, 
but  an  everlasting  inheritance  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  for  all  those  whom  the  Father 
had  given  unto  him.'  Again,  in  answer  to  Cluestion  44,  Larger  Catechism  'Christ 
executeth  the  oflice  of  a  Priest  in  his  once  offering  himself  a  sacrifice  without  spot  to 
God,  to  be  a  reconciliation  for  the  sins  of  his  people.'  &.c. 

"2.  At  p.  11,  he  says,  '  the  atonement  of  itself  secured  the  salvation  of  no  one;'  and 
again,  '  The  atonement  secured  the  salvation  of  no  one,  except  as  God  had  promised 
his  Son  that  he  should  see  of  the  travail  of  his  soul,  and  except  on  the  condition  of 
repentance  and  faith.'  This  language  is  incautious  and  calculated  to  mislead  ;  as  it 
seeins  to  imply  that  the  atonement  of  itself  does  not  secure  its  own  application,  and, 
therefore,  may,  by  possibility,  fail  in  its  design.  It  is  improper  to  suspend  its  efficacy 
upon  conditions,  when  the  conditions  themselves  are  the  results  of  its  efficacy,  see 
Confession  of  Faith,  chap,  viii,  8,  '  To  all  those  for  whom  Christ  hath  purchased 
redemption,  he  doth  certainly  and  effectually  apply  and  communicate  the  same ; 
making  intercession  for  them,  in  and  by  the  word,  the  mysteries  of  salvation ; 
effectually  persuading  them  by  his  Spirit  to  believe  and  obey,'  &c. 

"  3.  At  p.  10,  he  unequivocally  denies  that  Christ  endured  the  penalty  of  the  law.  '  He 
did  not  indeed,  endure  the  penalty  of  the  law,  for  his  sufferings  were  not  eternal,  nor  did 
he  endure  remorse  of  conscience  ;  but  he  endured  so  much  suffering,  bore  so  much 
agony,  that  the  Father  was  pleased  to  accept  of  it,  in  the  place  of  the  eternal  torments 
of  all  that  should  be  saved.'  Here  it  seems  to  be  inculcated  that  Christ  did  not  satisfy 
the  precise  claims  which  a  violated  law  had  upon  the  sinner,  but  that  he  did  what 
might  be  considered  a  substitute  for  such  satisfaction  ;  or  it  is  implied  that  God 
remitted  or  waived  the  original  claim,  and  accepted  of  something  less.  And  that  this 
is  the  sentiment  of  the  author,  is  evident  from  his  language,  p.  1 1.  '  Christ's  sufferings 
were  severe,  more  severe  than  those  of  any  mortal  before  or  since ;  but  they  bore,  so 
far  as  we  can  see,  only  a  very  distant  resemblance  to  the  pains  of  hell,  the  proper 
penalties  of  the  law.  Nor  is  it  possible  to  conceive  that  the  sufferings  of  a  few  hours, 
however  severe,  could  equal  pains,  though  far  less  intense,  eternally  prolonged.  Still 
less  that  the  sufferings  of  huniun  nature  in  a  single  instance,  for  the  divine  nature 
could  not  suffer,  should  be  equal  to  the  eternal  pain  of  many  millions.'  Here  it  is 
affirmed  that  Christ  was  not  capable  of  enduring  that  penalty  which  the  justice  of  God 
had  exacted  of  the  sinner,  that  his  sufferings  bore  a  very  d  stant  resemblance  to  it,  and 
by  consequence,  that  the  penalty  of  the  law  has  been  either  relaxed  or  is  yet  unpaid, 
and  that  the  justice  of  God  has  waived  its  original  demand,  or  is  yet  unsatisfied. 

"The  whole  of  this  language  seems  derogatory  to  Christ  as  an  all-sufficient  Re- 
deemer; it  judges  of  the  human  nature  of  Christ  as  if  it  were  a  common  human  nature, 
it  leaves  out  of  view  the  infinite  support  which  the  divine  nature  was  capable  of  impart- 
ing to  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  and  is  very  different  from  the  view  of  this  subject 
given  by  the  framers  of  our  standards,  in  the  answer  to  the  38  Q..  of  L.  C.  '  It  was 
requisite  that  the  Mediator  should  be  God,  that  he  might  sustain  and  keep  the  human 
nature  from  sinking  under  the  infinite  wrath  of  God,  and  the  power  of  death ;  give 


10 

worth  and  efficacy  to  his  sufferings,  obedience  and  intercession  ;  and  to  satisfy  God's 
justice,'  &c.  &c. 

"In  discoursing  on  human  ability,  the  sermon  contains  expressions  which  do  not  seem 
to  be  well  judged.  In  p.  14,  it  is  said,  'it  is  not  to  any  want  of  physical  strength  that 
this  rejection  is  owing,  lor  men  have  power  enough  in  themselves,  to  hate  both  God  and 
their  fellow  men,  and  it  requires  less  physical  power  to  love  God  than  to  hate  him  ;' 
and  on  the  same  page  he  represents  man's  inability  as  solely  in  the  will ;  and  on  p.  30, 
that  men  are  not  saved  simply  because  they  loiU  not  be  saved.  Here  physical  ability 
is  represented  as  competent  to  the  performance  of  a  moral  action,  which  is  an  improper 
application  of  terms,  and  human  inability  as  resulting  merely  from  the  will,  and  not 
from  total  depravity,  which  is  contrary  to  Confession  Faith,  chap.  vi.  4.  '  From  this 
original  corruption,  whereby  we  are  utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and  made  opposite  to 
all  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil,  do  proceed  all  actual  transgressions,'  and 
Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  ix.  3.  "  Man,  by  his  fall  into  a  state  of  sin,  hath  wholly 
lost  all  ability  of  will  to  any  spiritual  good  accompanying  salvation,  so,  as  a  natural 
man  being  altogether  averse  Irom  that  which  is  good,  and  dead  to  sin,  is  not  able  by 
his  own  strength,  to  convert  himself,  or  to  prepare  himself  thereunto.' 

"  Still  further,  the  language  of  the  sermon,  on  the  subjcat  of  conformity  to  the  stand- 
ards of  the  church,  if  sanctioned,  would  give  to  every  individual,  after  adopting  these 
standards,  the  liberty  of  dissenting  from  them  as  much,  and  as  often,  as  he  might  desire. 
Thus  p.  6,  he  says,  '  It  is  not  denied  that  this  language  vaiies  from  the  statements 
which  are  often  made  on  this  subject,  and  from  the  opinion  which  has  been  entertained 
by  many.  And,  it  is  admitted,  that  it  does  not  accord  with  that  used  on  the  same 
subject  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  other  standards  of  doctrine.'  And  again  p.  12. 
'  The  great  principle  on  which  the  author  supposes  the  truths  of  religion  are  to  be 
preached,  and  on  which  he  endeavours  to  act  is,  that  the  Bible  is  to  be  interpreted 
by  all  the  honest  helps  within  the  reach  of  the  preacher,  and  then  proclaimed  as  it  is, 
let  it  lead  -where  it  will,  witliin,  or  without  tiie  circumference  of  any  arrangement  of 
doctrines.  He  is  supposed  to  be  responsible,  not  at  all  for  its  impinging  on  any  theo- 
logical system ;  nor  is  he  to  be  cramped  by  any  frame  work  of  Faith  that  has  been 
reared  around  the  Bible.'  This  language  would  seem  to  imply,  that  an  individual  may 
enter  the  bosom  of  a  church  by  a  public  reception  of  its  creed,  and  continue  in  the  com- 
munion of  that  church,  although  he  should  subsequently  discover  that  its  creed  was  not 
founde  I  on  the  word  of  God.  Whilst  the  liberty  of  every  man  to  accept  or  reject  any 
particular  creed,  is  fully  acknowledged  by  this  Presbytery,  yet  they  do  deny,  that  any 
minister,  whilst  he  remains  in  the  communion  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  has  a  right  to 
impugn  in  its  creed,  or  to  make  a  public  declaration  that  he  is  not  bound  by  its  authority^ 

"  In  fine,  a  ivhole  view  of  this  discourse  seems  to  warrant  the  belief,  that  the  grand  and 
fundamental  doctrine  of  justitication,  as  held  by  the  Protestant  Pv,eformers,  and  taught 
clearly  and  abundantly  in  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  is  really  not  held, 
but  denied  in  this  sermon.  For  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  is  denied  ;  and  the 
endurance  of  the  penalty  of  the  law  by  Christ,  is  denied ;  and  any  special  reference  of 
the  atonement  to  the  elect  of  God,  is  denied  ;  and  the  righteousness  of  Christ  as 
the  meritorious  ground  of  our  acquittal  and  acceptance  with  God,  is  not  once 
mentioned,  although  the  text  of  the  discourse  naturally  points  to  the  doctrine :  and 
when  it  is  considered  that  the  imputation  of  Adam's  first  sin  to  his  posterity, 
and  the  imputation  of  the  sins  of  God's  people  to  their  surety  Saviour,  and  the 
imputation  of  his  finished  righteousness  to  tliem,  do  all  rest  upon  the  same  ground,  and 
must  all  stand  or  fall  together,  and  that  it  has  been  found  in  fact,  that  those  who  deny 
one  of  these,  do  generally  deny  the  whole,  and  to  be  consistent,  must  necessarily  do 
so,  it  is  no  forced  conclusion,  but  one  which  seems  inevitable,  that  the  sermon  does 
really  reject  the  doctrine  of  justitication,  as  held  by  frte  Reformers,  and  as  taught  in 
our  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms  ;  that  it  does  not  teach  as  the  answer  to  the 
question  on  justification  in  our  Shorter  Catechism  asserts,  that  "  Justification  is  an  act 
of  God's  free  grace,  wherein  he  pardoneth  all  our  sins,  and  accepteth  us  as  righteous  in 
his  sight,  only  for  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  imputed  to  us,  and  received  by  faith  alone.' 

"  It  is  not  satisfactory,  that  the  sermon  says,  that  'Christ  died  in  the  place  of  sin- 
ners ;'  that  it  speaks  of 'the  merits  of  the  Son  of  God,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ' — of 'the 
love  of  Christ,'  of 'putting  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,'  of  being  'willing  to  drop  into  the 
hands  of  Jesus,  and  to  be  saved  l>y  his  merit  alone,'  of  God,  '  sprinkling  on  the  soul  the 
blood  of  Jesus,  and  freely  pardoning  all  its  sins,'  since  this  language  may  be  usod,  and 
is  actually  used,  by  some  wlio  cxpliL-itly  deny  that  Clirist  took  the  law  pi  tc;;  of  sinners, 
bore  the  curse  of  God's  law  in  tiicir  room  and  stead,  and  that  they  are  saved  only  by 
the  imputation  to  them  of  his  perfect  righteousness. 


11 

"  On  the  whole,  the  Presbytery  express  their  deep  regret,  that  Mr.  Barnes  should 
have  preached  and  pubHshed  a  discourse,  so  highly  objectionable,  and  so  manifestly, 
in  some  of  its  leading  points,  opposed  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  and 
Cat'^chisms  of  the  Presbyteiian  Church  ;  they  earnestly  recommend  to  Mr.  Barnes,  to 
rci-i  insider  and  renounce  the  erroneous  matter  contained  in  his  printed  sermon,  as 
specified  in  the  foregoing  decisions  of  Presbytery :  and  with  a  view  to  afford  time  to 
Mr.  Barnes  for  reflection  and  reconsideration,  in  reference  to  the  errors  of  his  sermon, 
and  for  opportunity  for  such  of  the  brethren,  as  may  choose  to  converse  freely  with 
him  on  the  subject,  the  Presbytery  do  suspend  their  final  decision  on  the  case,  until 
their  next  stated  meeting." 

At  this  meeting  likewise,  a  committee  was  appointed  to  wait  on 
Mr.  Barnes. 

"  To  communicate  to  him  the  result  of  the  deliberations  of  this  Presbytery  in  the  ex- 
amination of  his  sermon,  and  to  converse  with  him  freely  and  affectionately,  on  the 
points  excepted  to  in  that  sermon  ;  in  the  hope  and  expectation,  tb.at  the  interview  will 
result  in  removing  or  diminishing  the  difficulties  wliich  have  arisen  in  his  case ;  and 
that  they  report  at  the  next  meeting  of  Presbytery." 

This  Committee  performed  their  duty,  they  saw  and  conversed 
with  Mr.  B.,  but  were  informed  by  him  that  he  considered  all  the 
proceedings  of  the  Presbytery  in  his  case  since  the  decision  of  the 
Synod  as  unconstitutional,  and  that,  therefore,  he  could  not  receive 
them  as  a  Committee.  Their  report  was  made  accordingly  to  the 
Presbytery  by  whom  the  whole  case  was  referred  to  the  Assembly, — 
not  however  without  having  connected  with  it  two  or  three  com- 
plaints by  which  the  Delegates  from  Presbytery  to  that  body 
would  be  excluded  from  voting  against  the  errors  of  the  Sermon. 

Of  the  unusual  proceedings  of  the  Assembly  in  the  case,  we  say 
nothing.     The  following  resolutions  were  passed  : — 

"  1.  Resolved,  That  the  General  Assembly,  while  it  appreciates  the  conscientious 
zeal  for  the  purity  of  the  Church,  by  which  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  is  believed 
to  have  been  actuated,  in  its  proceedings  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Barnes  ;  and  while  it  judges 
that  the  sermon  by  Mr,  Barnes,  entitled,  'The  Way  of  Salvation,'  contains  a  number 
of  unguarded  and  objectionable  passages;  yet  is  of  the  opinion,  that,  especially  after 
the  explanations  which  were  given  by  him  of  those  passages,  the  Presbytery  ought  to 
have  suffered  the  whole  to  pass  without  further  notice. 

"  2.  Resolved,  That  in  the  judgment  of  this  Assembly,  the  Presbytery  of  Philadel- 
phia ought  to  suspend  all  further  proceedings  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Barnes. 

"  3.  Resolved,  That  it  will  be  expedient,  so  soon  as  the  regular  steps  can  be  taken, 
to  divide  the  Presbytery  in  such  way,  as  M'ill  be  best  calculated  to  promote  the  peace 
of  the  ministers  and  churches  belonging  to  the  Presbytery." 

After  all  this  had  transpired,  Mr.  Barnes  saw  fit  to  publish,  in 
his  notes  on  the  Romans,  in  a  more  expanded  form,  the  same  errors 
which  he  had  previously  published  in  his  Sermon.  The  Rev.  Dr. 
Junkin,  for  reasons  which  appeared  to  him,  not  only  sufficient  but 
imperative,  and  which  he  has  published  to  the  world,  tabled  char- 
ges against  him  before  his  Presbytery — and  here  without  entering 
into  the  argument,  or  copying  the  reasonings  of  Dr.  J.  we  simply 
introduce  his  charges,  and  the  proofs  he  adduced. 

"  The  Rev.  Albert  Barnes  is  hereby  charged  with  maintaining  the  following  doc- 
trines, contrary  to  the  Standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  viz.  : 
Charge  I. 

"  That  sin  consists  in  voluntary  action." 

Proof  1st.  Notes  on  Romans,  p.  249.  "In  all  this,  and  in  all  other  sin,  mania 
voluntarj'." 

Proof  "2d.  Same  work,  p.  123.    "  There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  they  [men]  are 


12 

condemned  to  eternal  death,  or  held  to  be  guilty  of  his  sin  [meaning  Adam's  sin]  with- 
out participation,  of  their  own,  or  without  personal  sin,  any  more  than  that  they  are 
approved  by  the  work  of  Christ,  or  held  to  be  personally  deserving,  without  embracing 
his  offer,  and  receiving  him  as  a  Saviour." 

Proof  3d,  p.  192.  "  They  (Jacob  and  Esau)  had  done  nothing  good  or  bad,  and 
where  that  is  the  case  there  can  be  no  character,  for  character  is  the  result  of  conduct. 

That  the  period  of  moral  agency  had  not  yet  commenced. 

Proof  4,  p.  124.  "  As  the  work  of  Christ  does  not  benefit  the  race  unless  it  is  em- 
braced, so  does  not  the  reasoning  of  the  Apostle  lead  us  to  the  conclusion  that  the  deed 
of  Adam  does  not  condemn  unless  there  be  some  voluntary  act  on  the  part  of  each 
individual  ? 

Proof  5,  p.  118.  "Men  will  not  be  held  guilty  unless  there  is  a  law  which  binds 
them,  of  which  they  are  apprised,  and  which  they  voluntarily  transgress." 

That  this  doctrine  is  contrary  to  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  will  ap- 
pear by  referring  to  Confession  of  Faith  chap.  vi.  5.  "  This  corruption  of  nature,  during 
this  life,  doth  remain  in  those  that  are  regenerated  ;  and  althouoh  it  be  through  Christ 
pardoned  and  mortified,  yet  both  itself,  and  all  the  motions  thereof  are  truly  and  properly 
sin."  6.  "Every  sin,  both  original  and  actual,  being  a  transgression  of  the  righteons 
law  of  God,  and  contrary  thereunto,  doth  in  its  own  nature,  bring  guilt  upon  the  sinner, 
whereby  he  is  bound  over  to  the  wrath  of  God  and  curse  of  the  law,  and  so  made  sub- 
ject to  death,  with  all  miseries,  spiritual,  temporal  and  eternal." 

Lar.  Cat.  Gluest.  27. — "The  fall  brought  upon  mankind  the  loss  of  communion  with 
God,  his  displeasure  and  curse ;  so  as  we  are  by  nature  children  of  wrath,  bond  slaves 
to  Satan,  and  justly  liable  to  all  punishments  in  this  world,  and  that  which  is  to  come." 

Shorter  Cat.  Gluest.  19. — "  All  mankind  by  their  fall  lost  communion  with  God,  are 
under  his  wrath  and  curse,  and  so  made  liable  to  all  the  miseries  of  this  life,  to  death 
itself,  and  to  the  pains  of  hell  for  ever." 

Con.  chap.  ix. — "  1.  God  hath  endued  the  will  of  man  with  that  natural  liberty,  that 
it  is  neither  forced,  nor  by  any  absolute  necessity  of  nature,  determined  to  good  or  evil. 

"  2.  Man,  in  his  state  of  innocency,  had  freedom  and  power  to  will  and  to  do  that 
which  is  good  and  well-pleasing  to  God  ;  but  yet  mutably,  so  that  he  might  fall  from  it. 

"  3.  Man,  by  his  fall  into  a  state  of  sin,  hath  wholly  lost  all  ability  of  will  to  any 
spiritual  good  accompanying  salvation  :  so  as  a  natural  man  being  altogether  averse 
from  that  which  is  good,  and  dead  in  sin,  is  not  able,  by  his  own  strength,  to  convert 
himself,  or  to  prepare  himself  thereunto. 

"4.  When  God  converts  a  sinner,  and  translates  him  into  the  state  of  grace,  he 
freeth  him  from  his  natural  bondage  under  sin,  and  by  his  grace  alone,  enables  him 
freely  to  will  and  to  do  that  which  is  spiritually  good  ;  yet  so  as  that,  by  reason  of  his 
remaming  corruption,  he  doth  not  perfectly,  nor  only,  will  that  which  is  good,  but 
doth  also  will  that  which  is  evil. 

"  5.  The  will  of  man  is  made  perfectly  and  immutably  free  to  good  alone,  in  the 
state  of  glory  only." 

Charge  II. 

"  That  Adam  (before  and  after  his  fall)  was  ignorant  of  his  moral  relations  to  such 
a  degree,  that  he  did  not  know  the  consequences  of  his  sin  would  or  should  reach  any 
further,  than  to  natural  death." 

Proof  1.  Note  p.  115.  "  If  an  inquiry  be  made  here,  how  Adam  would  understand 
this  [the  threatening  of  death  ;]  I  reply  that  we  have  no  reason  to  think  he  would  un- 
derstand it  as  referring  to  any  thing  more  than  the  loss  of  life  as  an  expression  of  the 
displeasure  of  God.  Moses  does  not  intimate  that  he  was  learned  in  the  nature  of 
laws  and  penalties,  and  his  narrative  would  lead  us  to  suppose  that  this  was  all  that 
would  occur  to  Adam.  And  indeed  there  is  the  highest  evidence  the  case  admits  of, 
that  this  was  his  understanding  of  it.  For  in  the  account  of  the  infliction  oi  the  penalty, 
after  the  law  was  violated,  in  God's  ov/n  interpretation  of  it,  in  Gen.  iii.  19,  there  is 
still  no  reference  to  any  thing  further.  "  Dust  thou  art  and  unto  dust  thou  shalt  return." 
Now  it  is  incredible  that  Adam  should  have  understood  this  as  referring  to  what  has 
been  called  "  spiritual  death"  and  to  "  eternal  death,"  when  neither  in  the  threatening, 
nor  in  the  account  of  the  infliction  of  the  sentence,  is  there  the  slightest  recorded  refer- 
ence to  it.  Men  have  done  great  injury  to  the  cause  of  correct  interpretation  by  carry- 
ing their  notions  of  doctrinal  subjects  to  the  explanation  of  words  and  phrases  in  the 
Old  Testament.  They  have  usually  described  Adam  as  endowed  with  all  the  refine- 
ment, and  possessed  of  all  the  knowledge,  and  adorned  with  all  the  metaphysical 
acumen  and  subtility  of  a  modern  theologian.  They  have  deemed  him  qualified,  in  the 
very  infancy  of  the  world,  to  understand  and  discuss  questions,  which,  under  sl\  tlie 


13 

light  of  the  Christian  revelation,  still  perplex  and  embarrass  the  human  mind.  Afler 
these  accounts  of  the  endowments  of  Adam  which  occupy  so  large  a  space  in  books  of 
theology,  one  is  surprised,  on  opening  the  Bible,  to  find  how  unlike  all  this  is  to  the  sim- 
ple statement  in  Genesis.  And  the  wonder  cannot  be  suppressed  tiiat  men  should 
describe  the  obvious  in/ajici/ of  the  race  as  superior  to  its  highest  advancement;  or  that 
the  first  man,  just  created,  just  looking  upon  a  world  of  wonders,  unacquainted  with 
law,  and  moral  relations,  and  the  efftct  of  transgression  should  be  represented  as  en- 
dowed with  knowledge  which  four  thousand  years  afterwards  it  required  the  advent  of 
the  Son  of  God  to  communicate." 

How  contrary  all  this  is  to  the  Standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  will  appear  by 
referring  to 

Con.  chap.  iv.  2. — "  After  God  had  made  all  other  creatures,  he  created  man,  male 
and  female,  with  reasonable  and  immortal  souls,  endued  with  knowledge,  righteous- 
ness, and  true  holiness,  alter  his  own  image,  having  the  law  of  God  written  in  their 
hearts,  and  power  to  fulfil  it ;  and  yet  under  a  possibility  of  transgressing,  being  left  to 
the  liberty  of  their  own  will  which  was  subject  unto  change.  Besides  this  law  written 
in  their  hearts,  they  received  a  command  not  to  eat  of  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of 
good  and  evil ;  which  while  they  kept  they  were  happy  in  their  communion  with  God, 
and  had  dominion  over  their  creatures." 

Lar.  Cat.  duest.  17. — "After  God  had  made  all  other  creatures,  he  created  man, 
male  and  female ;  formed  the  body  of  the  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and  the 
woman  of  the  rib  of  the  man;  endued  them  with  living,  reasonable,  and  immortal 
souls ;  made  them  after  his  own  image,  in  knowledge,  righteousness  and  holiness, 
having  the  law  of  God  written  in  their  hearts,  and  power  to  fulfil  it,  with  dominion 
over  the  creatures  ;  yet  subject  to  fall. 

20.  "  The  providence  of  God  toward  man  in  the  estate  in  which  he  was  created,  was, 
the  placing  hnn  in  Paradise,  appointing  him  to  dress  it,  giving  him  liberty  to  eat  of  the 
fruit  of  the  earth,  putting  the  creatures  under  his  dominion,  and  ordaining  marriage 
for  his  help  ;  affurding  him  communion  with  himself,  instituting  the  Sabbath,  entering 
into  a  covenant  of  life  with  him,  upon  condiiion  of  personal,  perfect,  and  perpetual 
obedience,  of  which  the  tree  of  life  was  a  pledge ;  and  forbidding  to  eat  of  the  tree  of 
knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  upon  the  pain  of  death. 

22.  "The covenant  being  made  with  Jidam,  as  a  public  person,  not  for  himself  only, 
but  for  his  posterity  ;  all  mankind  descending  from  liim  by  ordinary  generation,  sinned  m 
him  and  fell  with  him  in  that  first  transgression.'' 

ShorterCat.  chap.  12. — "When  God  had  created  man,  he  entered  into  acovenantof 
life  with  him,  upon  condition  of  perfect  obedience ;  forbidding  him  to  eat  of  the  tree 
of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  upon  pain  of  death." 
Charge  111. 

"  That  unregenerate  men  are  able  to  keep  the  commandments  and  convert  themselves 
to  God." 

Proof  1,  164,  "  The  carnal  mind.  This  is  the  same  expression  as  occurs  in  verse  6, 
(to  (ppovyijiti  T/is  crapKo;.)  It  does  not  mean  the  mind  itself,  the  intellect  or  the  will ;  it 
does  not  suppose  that  the  mind  or  the  soul  is  physically  depraved,  or  opposed  to  God  ; 
but  it  means  that  the  minding  of  the  things  of  the  fiesh,  giving  to  them  supreme  atten- 
tion, is  hostility  to  God."  ^'■For  it. — The  word  (it)  here  refers  to  the  minding  of  the 
things  of  the  llesh.  It  does  not  mean  that  the  soul  itself  is  not  subject  to  his  law,  but 
that  the  minding  of  those  things  is  hostile  to  his  law.  The  Apostle  does  not  express 
any  opinion  about  the  metaphysical  ability  of  man,  or  discuss  that  question  at  all.  The 
amount  of  his  affirmation  is  simply,  that  the  minding  of  the  fiesh,  the  supreme  attention 
to  its  dictates  and  desires,  is  not  and  cannot  be  subject  to  the  law  of  God.  They  are 
wholly  contradictory  and  irreconcileable,  just  as  much  as  the  love  of  falsehood  is  incon- 
sistent with  the  laws  of  truth  ;  as  intemperance  is  inconsistent  with  the  laws  of  tempe- 
rance ;  and  as  adultery  is  a  violation  of  the  seventh  commandment.  But  whether  the 
man  himself  might  not  obey  the  law  ;  whether  he  has  or  has  not  ability  to  do  it — is  a 
question  which  the  apostle  does  not  touch,  and  on  which  this  passage  should  not  be 
adduced.  For  whether  the  lavv  of  a  particular  sin  is  utterly  irreconcileable  with  an 
opposite  virtue,  and  wiiether  the  sinner  is  able  to  abandon  that  sin,  and  pursue  a  dif- 
ferent path,  are  very  different  inquiries. 

Is  not  subject. — It  is  not  in  subjection  to  the  command  of  God.  The  minding  of  the 
flesh  is  opposed  to  that  law,  and  thus  shows  that  ii  is  hostile  to  God. 

J^Teither  indeed  can  be. — This  is  absolute  and  certain.  It  is  impossible  that  it  should 
be.  There  is  the  utmost  inability  in  regard  to  it.  The  things  are  utterly  irreconcilea- 
ble.   But  the  affirmation  does  not  mean  that  the  heart  of  the  sinner  might  not  be  sub- 


14 

ject  to  God  ;  or  that  his  soul  is  so  physically  depraved  that  he  cannot  obey,  or  that  he 
might  not  obey  the  law, 

165.  8.   So  then — It  follows,  it  leads  to  this  conclusion. 

"  They  that  are  in  the  flesh. — They  who  are  nnrcnewod  sinners,  who  are  following 
supremely  the  desires  of  the  flesh.  Chap.  vii.  18.  Those  are  meant  here  who  follow 
fleshly  app(>tites,  and  desire'^,  and  who  are  not  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 

"  Cannot  please  God. — That  is,  while  they  are  thus  in  the  flesh  ;  while  they  thus  pursue 
the  desires  of  thiir  conui-.t  natiirc,  th'^'V  cannot  please  God.  But  this  aflirms  nothing 
respecting  thiir  ahiHty  tn  turn  iVom  this  course,  and  to  pursue  a  different  mode  of  life. 
That  IS  a  diflorent  cpn  stion.  A  child  may  be  obstinate,  proud  and  disobedient;  and 
lohile  in  this  state,  it  lar.y  he  affirmed  of  him,  that  he  cannot  please  his  parent.  But 
whether  he  mi^ilit  nnt  cease  to  be  ol)stinate,  and  become  obedient  is  a  very  different 
inquiry,  and  the  two  subjects  should  never  be  confounded.***  He  [the  sinner]  is 
engaged  in  hosiihly  airainst  God  ;  and  if  he  does  not  himself  forsake  it,  it  will  be  end- 
less, and  involve  ins  soul  in  all  the  evils  of  a  personal,  and  direct,  and  eternal  warfare 
with  the  Lord  Ahiii  jlity.***  The  Holy  Spirit  is  often  represented  as  dwelling  in  the 
hearts  of  Christians  ;  an!  the  meani'ig  is  not  that  there  is  a  personal  or  physical  indwel- 
ling of  the  Holy  Ghost,  lint  that  h:'  intluences,  directs,  and  guides  Christians,  producing 
meekness,  love,  juy,  jicncc,  l;iiii;-suif;'i-ing,  gentleness,  goodness,  &c.  The  expression 
to  dwell  in  one,  (Icimfcs  inti.iuicy  of  connexion,  and  means  that  those  things  which  are 
the  fruits  of  t!ie  Spliir,  ;ire  pro;lurcd  in  the  heart." 

Proof  2,  p.  lOS.  "  We  inere  yet  irithout  strength.  The  word  here  used  (aaOcvuiv) 
is  usually  ajiplied  to  those  vvlio  are  sick  and  fei'ble,  deprived  of  strength  by  disease. 
Matt.  XXX.  38 ;  Luke  x.  9  ;  Acts  iv.  9,  v.  15,  But  it  is  also  used  in  a  7noral  sense  to 
denote  inability  or  feebleness,  with  regard  to  any  undertaking  or  duty.  Here  it  means 
that  they  were  without  strength  in  regard  to  the  case  ivhich  the  Jiposlle  was  considering  ; 
that  is,  we  had  no  power  to  dnvisc  a  scheme  of  justification,  to  make  an  atonement,  or 
to  put  away  the  wrath  of  God,  &c.  While  all  hope  of  man's  being  saved  by  any  plan 
of  his  own,  was  then  taken  away ;  while  he  was  thus  lying  exposed  to  divine  justice, 
and  dependant  on  the  mere  mercy  of  God  ;  God  provided  a  plan  which  met  the  case, 
and  secured  his  salvation.  The  remark  of  the  apostle  here  has  reference  only  to  the 
condition  of  the  case  before  the  atonement  was  made.  It  does  not  pertain  to  the  ques- 
tion, whether  man  has  strength  to  repent  and  believe,  now  that  the  atonement  is  made, 
which  is  a  very  different  inquiry." 

The  contrariety  of  this  to  the  Standards,  will  appear  by  reference  to 
Con.  chap.  vi.  4. — "  From  this  original  corruption,  whereby  we  are  utterly  indisposed, 
disabled,  and  made  opposite  to  all  good,  and  wholly  inchned  to  all  evil,  do  proceed  all 
actual  transgressions." 

Chap.  xi.  3. — "  Man,  by  his  fall  into  a  state  of  sin,  hath  wholly  lost  all  ability  of 
will  to  any  spiritual  good  accompanying  salvation  :  so  as  a  natural  man  being 
altogether  averse  from  that  M'hich  is  good,  and  dead  in  sin,  is  not  able,  by  his  own 
strength,  to  convert  himself,  or  to  prepare  himself  thereimto." 

4.  "  When  God  converts  a  sinner,  and  translates  him  into  the  state  of  grace,  he 
freeth  him  from  his  natural  bondage  under  sin,  and  by  his  grace  alone,  enables  him 
freely  to  will  and  to  do  that  which  is  spiritually  good  ;  yet  so  as  that,  by  reason  of  his 
remaining  corruption,  he  doth  not  perfectly,  nor  only,  will  that  which  is  good,  but  doth 
also  will  that  which  is  evil." 

Chap.  X.  1. — "All  those  whom  God  hath  predestinated  unto  life,  and  those  only,  he 
is  pleased,  in  his  appointed  and  accepted  time,  effoctually  to  call,  by  his  word  and 
Spirit,  out  of  that  state  of  sin  and  death,  in  which  they  are  by  nature,  to  grace  and 
salvation  by  Jesus  Christ ;  enlightening  their  minds  spiritually  and  savingly,  to  under- 
stand the  things  of  God,  taking  away  their  heart  of  stone,  and  giving  unto  them  a 
heart  of  flesh;  renewing  their  wills,  and  by  his  almighty  power  determining  them  to 
that  which  is  good;  and  effiictually  drawing  them  to  Jesus  Christ;  yet  so  as  they 
come  most  freely,  being  made  willing  by  his  grace, 

"  2.  This  eflfcetual  call  is  of  God's  free  and  special  grace  alone,  not  from  any  thing 
at  all  foreseen  in  man  ;  who  is  altogether  passive  therein,  until,  being  quickened  and 
renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  is  thereby  enabled  to  answer  this  call,  and  to  embrace 
the  grace  offered  and  conveyed  in  it." 

Con.  chap,  xvi, — "1.  Good  works  are  only  such  as  God  hath  commanded  in  his 
holy  word,  and  not  such  as  without  the  warrant  thereof,  are  devised  by  men  out  of 
blind  zeal,  or  upon  any  pretence  of  good  intention. 

"  2.  These  good  works,  done  in  obedience  to  God's  commandments,  arc  the  fruits 
and  evidences  of  a  true  and  lively  faith  :  and  by  them  believers  manifest  their  thank- 


15 

fulness,  strengthen  their  assurance,  edify  their  brethren,  adorn  the  profession  of  the 
Gospel,  stop  the  mouths  of  the  adversaries,  and  glorify  God,  whose  workmanship  they 
are,  created  in  Christ  Jesus  thereunto  that,  having  their  fruit  unto  holiness,  they  may 
have  the  end,  eternal  life. 

"  3.  Their  ability  to  do  good  works  is  not  at  all  of  themselves,  but  wholly  from  the 
Spirit  of  Christ.  And  that  they  may  be  enabled  thereunto,  besides  the  graces  they 
have  already  received,  there  is  required  an  actual  influence  of  the  same  Holy  Spirit  to 
work  in  them  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure  ;  yet  are  they  not  hereupon  to 
grow  negligent,  as  if  they  were  not  bound  to  perlbrm  any  duty  unless  upon  a  special 
motion  of  the  Spirit ;  but  they  ought  to  be  diligent  in  stirring  up  the  grace  of  God  that 
is  in  them. 

"  4.  They,  who  in  their  obedience;  attain  to  the  greatest  height  which  is  possible  in 
this  life,  are  so  far  from  supererogate  and  to  do  more  than  God  requires,  that  they  fall 
short  of  much,  which  in  duty  they  are  bound  to  do. 

"  5.  We  cannot,  by  our  best  works,  merit  pardon  of  sin,  or  eternal  life,  at  the  hand 
of  God,  by  reason  of  the  great  disproportion  that  is  between  them  and  the  glory  to  come, 
and  the  infinite  distance  that  is  between  us  and  God,  whom  by  them  we  can  neither 
profit,  nor  satisfy  for  the  debt  of  our  former  sins  ;  but  when  we  have  done  all  we  can, 
we  have  done  but  our  duty,  and  are  unprofitable  servants ;  and  because  as  they  are 
good,  they  proceeded  from  his  Spirit ;  and,  as  they  are  wrought  by  us,  they  are  defiled 
and  mixed  witli  so  much  weakness  and  imperfection,  that  they  cannot  endure  the 
severity  of  God's  judgment. 

"  6.  Yet  notwithstanding,  the  persons  of  believers  being  accepted  through  Christ, 
their  good  works  also  are  accepted  in  him,  not  as  though  they  were  in  this  life  wholly 
unblaineable  and  unreprovable  in  God's  sight ;  but  that  he,  looking  upon  them  in  his 
Son,  is  pleased  to  accept  and  reward  that  which  is  sincere,  although  accompanied  with 
many  weaknesses  and  imperfections. 

"  Works  done  by  unregenerate  men,  although,  for  the  matter  of  them,  they  may  be 
things  which  God  commands,  and  of  good  use  both  to  themselves  and  others  ;"  yet 
because  they  proceed  not  from  a  heart  purified  by  faith  ;  nor  are  done  in  a  right  manner, 
according  to  the  word  ;  nor  to  a  right  end,  tlie  glory  of  God  ;  they  are  therefore  sinful, 
and  cannot  please  God,  or  make  a  man  meet  to  receive  grace  I'rom  God.  And  yet 
their  neglect  of  them  is  more  sinful,  and  displeasing  unto  God." 
Charge  IV. 

"  That  faith  is  an  act  of  the  mind,  and  not  a  principle,  and  is  itself  imputed  for 
righteousness." 

Proof  1.  p.  94,  'Mraham  believed  Got/.'  In  the  Hebrew,  Abraham  believed  Je- 
hovah." The  sense  is  substantially  the  same,  as  the  argument  turns  on  the  act  of 
believing.  The  faith  which  Abraham  exercised  was,  that  his  posterity  should  be  like 
the  stars  of  heaven  in  number.  This  promise  was  made  to  him  when  he  had  no  child, 
and  of  course  M'hen  he  had  no  prospect  of  sucli  a  posterity.  See  the  strength  and  nature 
of  this  faith  further  illustrated  in  verses  16 — 21.  The  reason  why  it  vvas  counted  to 
him  for  righteousness  was,  that  it  was  such  a  strong,  direct  and  unwavering  act  of 
confidence  in  the  promise  of  God.  ^nd  it. — The  word  'it'  here  evidently  refe?s  to  the 
act  of  believing.  It  does  not  refer  to  the  rigliteousness  of  another — of  God,  or  of  the 
Messiah;  but  the  discussion  is  solely  of  the  strong  act  of  Abraham's  faith,  which  in 
some  sense  was  counted  to  him  for  righteousness.  In  what  sense  this  was,  is  explamed 
directly  after.  All  that  is  material  to  remark  here  is,  that  the  act  of  Abraham,  the 
strong  confidence  of  his  mind  in  the  promises  of  God,  his  unwavering  assurance  that 
what  God  had  promised  he  would  perform,  was  received  for  righteousness.  The  same 
thing  is  expressed  more  fully  in  ver.  IS — 22.  When,  therefore,  it  is  said  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  is  accounted  or  imputed  to  us ;  when  it  is  said  that  his  merits  are  trans- 
ferred and  reckoned  as  ours  ;  whatever  may  be  the  truth  of  the  doctrine,  it  cannot  be 
defended  by  this  passage  of  Scripture.  Faith  is  always  an  act  of  the  mind.  It  is  not 
a  created  essence  which  is  placed  within  the  mind.  It  is  not  a  substance  created  inde- 
pendently of  the  soul,  and  placed  within  it  by  Almighty  power.  It  is  not  a  principle, 
for  the  expression,  a  principle  of  faith,  is  as  umneaning  as  (a  principle  of  joy,  or  a 
principle  of  sorrow,  or  a  principle  of  remorse.  God  promises,  the  man  believes,  and 
this  is  the  whole  of  it.  Beyond  the  mental  operation,  there  is  nothing  in  the  case,  and 
the  word  is  strictly  limited  to  such  an  act  of  the  mind  througliout  the  Bible.  There  is 
not  a  place  that  can  he  adduced  where  the  word  means  any  thin^  else  than  an  act  of 
the  mind,  exercised  in  relation  to  some  oI)j;'ct,  or  some  promise,  or  threatening,  or 
declaration  of  some  other  being.'  p.  95.  'remark  (1)  'Ihat  it  is  evidently  not  intended 
that  the  act  of  believing,  on  the  part  of  Abraham,  was  the  meritorious  ground  of  accept- 


16 

ance  ;  for  then  it  would  have  been  a  work.  Faith  was  as  much  his  own  act,  as  any 
act  of  obedience  to  the  law.  (2)  The  design  of  the  Apostle  was  to  show  that  by  the 
Imo,  or  by  loorks,  man  could  not  be  justified,  Chap.  iii.  28,  iv.  2.  (3)  Faith  was  not 
that  which  the  law  required.  It  demanded  complete  and  perfect  obedience  ;  and  if  a 
man  was  justified  by  faith,  it  was  in  some  other  way,  than  by  the  law.  (4)  As  the  law 
did  not  demand  this,  [faiih  '  confidence  in  God,  see  page  30  ;]  and  as  faith  was  some- 
thing different  from  the  demand  of  the  law,  so  if  a  man  were  justified  by  that,  it  was  on 
a  principle  altogel  her  different  from  justification  by  works.  It  was  not  by  personal 
merit.     It  was  not  by  complying  with  the  law.     It  was  in  a  mode  entirely  different." 

How  contrary  this  to  the  Confession  of  Faith  is  evident. 

Con.  chap.  xiv. — "2.  By  this  faith  a  Christian  believeth  to  be  true,  whatsoever  is  re- 
vealed in  the  word,  for  the  authority  of  God  himself  speaking  therein  ;  and  acteth  dif- 
ferently, upon  that  which  each  particular  passage  thereof  containeth  ;  yielding  obedi- 
ence to  the  commands,  trembling  at  the  threatenings,  and  embracing  the  promises  of 
God  for  this  life,  and  that  which  is  to  come.  But  the  principal  acts  of  saving  faith,  are, 
accepting,  receiving,  and  resting  upon  Christ  alone  for  justification,  sanctification,  and 
eternal  life,  by  virtue  of  the  covenant  of  grace." 

Lar.  Cat.  Q.uest.  72. — "Justifying  faith  is  a  saving  grace,  wrought  in  the  heart  of  a 
sinner  by  the  Spirit  and  word  of  God  ;  whereby  he,  being  convinced  of  his  sin  and  misery, 
and  of  the  disability  in  himself  and  all  other  creatures  to  recover  him  out  of  his  lost 
condition,  not  only  assenteth  to  the  truth  of  the  promise  of  the  Gospel,  but  receiveth 
and  restcth  upon  Christ  and  his  righteousness  therein  held  forth, for  pardon  of  sin,  and 
for  the  accepting  and  accounting  of  his  person  righteous  in  the  sight  of  God  for 
salvation. 

73.  "Faitli  justifies  a  sinner  in  the  sight  of  God,  not  because  of  those  other  graces 
which  do  always  accompany  it,  or  of  good  works  that  are  the  fruits  of  it ;  nor  as  if  the 
grace  of  faith,  or  any  act  thereof,  were  imputed  to  him  for  his  justification  ;  but  only 
as  it  is  an  instrument,  by  which  he  receiveth  and  applieth  Christ  and  his  righteousness." 

Mr.  Barnes  is  also  charged  with  denying  the  following  doctrine;?,  which  are  taught 
in  the  standards  of  the  church,  viz. 

Charge  V. 

"  That  God  entered  into  covenant  with  Adam  constituting  him  a  federal  or  covenant 
head,  and  representative  to  all  his  natural  descendants." 

Proof  1.  p.  144.  "From  these  remarks  it  is  clear  that  the  apostle  does  not  refer  to 
the  man  here  from  any  idea  that  there  was  any  particular  covenant  transaction  with 
him ;  but  that  he  means  to  speak  of  it  in  the  usual  popular  sense  ;  referring  to  him  as 
being  the  fountain  of  all  the  woes  that  sin  has  introduced  into  the  world." 

Proof  2.  p.  128.  "  The  most  common  explanation  has  been,  that  Adam  was  the 
representative  of  the  race;  that  he  was  a  covenant  head,  and  that  his  sin  was  imputed 
to  his  posterity,  and  that  they  were  held  liable  to  punishment  for  it,  as  if  they  had  com- 
mitted it  themselves.     But  to  this  there  are  great  and  insuperable  objections. 

(1.)  There  is  not  one  word  of  it  in  the  Bible.  Neither  the  terms  representative, 
covenant,  or  impute  are  ever  applied  to  the  transaction  in  the  sacred  Scriptures,  (2.) 
It  is  a  mere  pliilosophical  theory." 

Proof  3.  p.  1.15.     As  quoted  under  charge  II. 

Proof  4.  p.  120,  121.  "  A  comparison  is  also  instituted  between  Adam  and  Christ>in 
1  Cor.  XV.  22 — 25.  The  reason  is,  not  that  Adam  was  the  representative  or  federal  head 
of  the  human  race,  about  which  the  apostle  says  nothing,  and  which  is  not  even  implied, 
but  that  he  Avas  the  first  of  the  race  ;  he  was  the  fountain,  the  head,  the  father  and  the 
consequences  of  that  first  act  introducing  sin  into  the  world  could  be  seen  everywhere. 
The  words  representative  and  federal  head  are  ^ncver  applied  to  Adam  in  the  Bible. 
The  reason  is,  that  the  word  representative  implies  an  idea  which  could  not  have  existed 
in  the  case — the  consent  of  those  who  are  represented.  Besides,  the  Bible  does  not  teach 
that  they  acted  in  him,  or  by  him  ;  or  that  he  acted  for  them.  No  passage  has  ever 
yet  been  found  that  stated  this  doctrine." 

Proof  5.  p.  128.  (2)  "  Nothing  is  said  of  a  covenant  with  him  (Adam.)  No  where  in 
the  Scriptures  is  the  term  covenant  applied  to  any  transaction  with  Adam.  (3)  All 
that  is  established  here  is  the  simple  fact  that  Adam  sinned,  and  that  this  made  it  cer- 
tain that  all  his  posterity  would  be  sinners.  Beyond  this  the  language  of  the  apostle 
does  not  go  ;  and  all  else  that  has  been  said  of  this  is  the  result  of  mere  philosophical 
speculation.  (4)  This  fact  is  one  that  is  apparent ;  and  tnat  accords  with  all  the 
analogy  in  the  moral  governmant  of  God.  The  drunkard  secures  commonly  as  a  result 
that  his  family  will  be  reduced  to  beggary,  want,  and  wo.  His  sin  is  commonly  the 
certain  occasion  of  their  being  sinners ;  and  the  immediate  cause  of  their  loss  of  property 


n 

and  comfort,  and  of  their  being  overwhelmed  inwretchedness  and  grief.    A  murderer 
M'ill  entail  disgrace  and  shame  on  his  family." 

How  utterly  opposed  all  this  is  to  the  Standards,  will  appear  by  reference  to  Con- 
fession of  Faith, 

Con.  chap.  vii.  1. — "  The  distance  between  God  and  the  creature  is  so  great,  that 
although  reasonable  creatures  do  owe  obedience  unto  him  as  their  Creator,  yet  they 
could  never  have  any  fruition  of  him,  as  then-  blessedness  and  reward,  but  by  some 
voluntary  condescension  on  God's  part,  which  he  hath  been  pleased  to  express  by  way 
of  covenant. 

"  2.  The  first  covenant  made  with  man  was  a  covenant  of  Works,  wherein  life  was 
promised  to  Adam,  and  in  him  to  his  posterity,  upon  condition  of  perfect  and  personal 
ol)cdience." 

Con.  chap.  xix.  1. — "  God  gave  to  Mam  a  law,  as  a  covenant  of  works,  by  which  he 
bound  him  and  all  his  posterity  to  personal,  entire,  exact,  and  perpetual  obedience; 
promised  life  upon  the  fulfilling,  and  threatened  death  upon  the  breach  of  it ;  and 
endued  him  with  power  and  abihty  to  keep  it." 

Lar.  Cat.  duest.  20. — "  The  providence  of  God  toward  man  in  the  estate  in  which 
he  was  created,  was,  the  placing  him  in  Paradise,  appointing  him  to  dress  it,  giving 
him  liberty  to  eat  of  the  fruit  of  the  earth,  putting  the  creatures  under  his  dominion, 
and  ordaining  marriage  for  his  help  ;  affording  him  communion  with  himself,  instituting 
the  Sabbath,  entering  into  a  covenant  of  life  with  him,  upon  condition  of  personal, 
perfect,  and  perpetual  obedience,  of  which  the  tree  of  life  was  a  pledge  ;  and  forbidding 
to  eat  of  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  upon  the  pain  of  death. 

"  22.  The  covenant  being  made  with  Mam,  as  a  public  person,  not  for  himself  only, 
but  for  his  posterity ;  all  mankind  descending  from  him  by  ordinary  generation,  sinned 
in  him  and  fell  with  him  in  that  first  transgression." 

Shorter  Cat.  duest.  12. — "  When  God  had  created  man,  he  entered  into  a  covenant 
of  life  with  him,  upon  condition  of  perfect  obedience  ;  forbidding  him  to  eat  of  the  tree 
of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  upon  pain  of  death. 

"  13.  Our  first  parents,  being  left  to  the  freedom  of  their  own  will,  fell  from  th« 
estate  wherein  they  were  created,  by  sinning  against  God. 

"  14.  Sin  is  any  want  of  conformity  unto,  or  transgression  of,  the  law  of  God. 

"15.  The  sin  whereby  our  first  parents  fell  from  the  estate  wherein  they  wer» 
created,  was  their  eating  the  forbidden  fruit. 

"  16.  The  covenant  being  made  with  Adam,  not  only  for  himself,  but  for  hia 
posterity,  all  mankind  descending  from  him  by  ordmary  generation,  sinned  in  him, 
and  fell  with  him  in  his  first  transgression." 

Charge  VI. 

"  That  the  first  sin  of  Adam  is  imputed  to  his  posterity." 

Proof  1.  p.  10.  "A  melancholy  instance  of  this  [substituting  theory  for  fact]  wo 
have  in  the  account  which  the  apostle  gives  (ch.  v.)  about  the  cffettof  the  sin  of  Adam. 
The  simple  fad  is  stated  that  that  sin  was  followed  by  the  sin  and  ruin  of  all  his  pos- 
terity. Yet  he  offers  no  explanation  of  the /ac^  He  leaves  it  as  indubitable  ;  and  as 
not  demanding  an  explanation  in  his  argument,  perhaps  as  not  admitting  it.  This  is 
the  whole  of  his  doctrine  on  that  subject.  Yet  men  have  not  been  satisfied  with  that. 
They  have  sought  for  a  theory  to  account  for  it.  And  many  suppose  they  have  found 
it  in  the  doctrine  that  the  sin  of  Adam  is  imputed,  or  set  over  by  an  arbitrary  arrange- 
ment to  beings  otherwise  innocent,  and  that  they  are  held  to  be  responsible  for  a  deed 
committed  by  a  man  thousands  of  years  before  they  were  born.  This  is  the  theory, 
and  men  insensibly  forget  that  it  is  mere  theory. 

Proof  2.  p.  117.  (3)  "It  comports  wiih  the  Apostle's  argument  to  state  a  cause 
why  all  died  and  not  to  state  that  men  sinned  in  Adam.  It  would  require  an  additional 
statement  to  see  how  that  could  be  a  cause,  (4)  The  expression,  'in  whom  all  have 
sinned,'  conveys  no  intelligible  idea.  As  men  had  not  an  existence  then  in  any  sense 
they  could  not  then  sin.  What  idea  is  conveyed  to  men  of  common  understandino-,  by 
the  expression  'they  sinned  in  him?'  The  meaning  of  the  expression,  therefore,  clearly 
is,  because  all  have  sinned  all  die. 

"  I  understand  it,  therefore,  as  referring  to  the  fact  that  men  sin  in  their  own  persons,  sin 
themselves — us  indeed,  how  ca'i  they  sin  in  any  other  way  ? — and  that  Iherefoie  they  die." 

Proof  3.  p.  119.  "The  difference  contemplated,  Rom.  x.  14.,  is  not  that  Adam  waa 
an  actual  sinner,  and  that  they  had  sinned  only  by  imputation.  For  (1.)  The  expression 
to  sin  by  imputation,  is  unintelligible  and  conveys  no  idea.  (2.)  The  apostle  inakea 
no  such  distinction  and  conveys  no  such  idea.  (3.)  His  very  object  is  different.  It  Jg 
to  show  that  they  tvere  actual  sinners ;  that  they  transgressed  law;  and  the  proof  of 

3 


18 

this  is  that  they  died.     (4.)  It  is  utterly  absurd  to  suppose  ^that  men  from  the  time  of 
Adam  to  Moses  were  sinners  only  by  imputation. 

Proof  4.  p.  119.  "Death  reigned;  and  this  proves  that  they  were  sinners.  If  it 
should  be  said  that  the  death  of  in/ints  would  prove  that  they  were  sinners  also,  I  an- 
swer.— (a)  That  this' was  an  inference  which  the  apostle  does  not  draw,  and  for  which 
he  is  not  responsible.  It  is  not  affirmed  by  him.  (b)  If  it  did  refer  to  infants,  what 
would  itprove  ?  Not  that  the  sin  of  Adam  was  imputed,  but.  that  they  were  personally 
guilty  arid  transgressors.  For  tliis  is  the  only  point  to  which  the  argument  tends.  The 
apostle  says  not  a  word  about  imputation.  He  does  not  even  refer  to  infants  by  name ; 
nor  does  he  here  introduce  at  all  the  doctrine  of  imputation.  All  this  is  mere  philoso- 
phy introduced  to  explain  difficulties;  but  whether  true  or  false;  whether  the  theory 
explains  or  embarrasses  the  subject,  it  is  not  needful  here  to  inquire.  (3)  The  very 
expression  here  is  against  the  supposition  that  infants  are  intended,  and  that  the  sin  of 
Adam  is  imputed  to  them.  The  doctrine  of  imputation  has  been,  tliat  infants  were 
personally  guilty  of  Adam's  sin  ;  that  they  '  sinned  in  him  ;'  that  there  was  a  personal 
^enijfi/ constituted  between  them  and  Adam,  (see  Edwards  on  Original  Sin)  :  and  that 
therefore  his  sin  was  theirs  as  really  and  truly  as  if  committed  by  themselves.  Yet 
here  the  apostle  says  that  those  of  whom  he  was  speaking  had  not  sinned  '  after  the 
similitude  of  Adam's  transgression.'  But  if  the  doctrine  of  imputation  be  true,  it  is 
certain  that  they  had  not  only  had  sinned  after  tlie  similitude  of  his  transgression,  but 
had  sinned  the  very  identical  sin.  It  was  precisely  like  him  ;  it  was  the  very  thing  itself; 
and  they  were  answerable  for  that  very  sin  as  their  own.  This  doctrine,  therefore, 
cannot  be  intende  1  here. 

Proof  5.  p.  121.  "  Nor  have  we  a  right  to  assume  that  this  [ver.  15.]  teaches  the  doc- 
trine of  the  imputation  of  the  sin  of  Adam  to  his  posterity.  For  (1)  the  apostle  says 
nothing  of  it.  (2)  That  doctrine  is  nothing  but  an  effort  to  explain  the  manner  of  an 
event  which  the  apostle  Paul  did  not  think  it  proper  to  attempt  to  explain.  (3)  That 
doctrine  is  in  fact  no  explanation.  It  is  introducing  an  additional  difficulty.  For  to  say 
that  I  am  guilty  of  the  sin  of  another  in  which  I  had  no  agency,  is  no  explanation,  but 
is  involving  me  in  additional  difficulty  etill  more  perplexing,  to  ascertain  how  such  a 
doctrine  can  possibly  be  just. 

Proof  6.  ^p.  127.  "  Thc'word  is  in  no  instance  used  to  express  the  idea  of  imputing 
thnt  to  one  ivhich  belongs  to  another.  It  here  either  means,  that  this  was  by  a  constitution 
of  divine  appointment  that  they  in  fact  became  sinners,  or  simply  declares  they  were  so 
in  fact.     There  is  not  the  slightest  intimation  that  it  was  by  imputation." 

Proof  7.  p.  128.     As  quoted  under  V.  p.  10. 

How  incopsistent  all  this  is  with  the  Standards,  will  be  seen  in 

Con.  chap.  vi.  3. — "They  being  the  root  of  all  mankind,  the  guilt  of  this  sin  was 
imputed,  and  the  same  death  in  sin  and  corrupted  nature  conveyed  to  all  their  posterity, 
descending  fom  them  by  ordinary  generation. 

"  4.  From  this  ori4inal  corruption,  whereby  we  are  utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and 
made  opposite  to  all  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil,  do  proceed  all  actual  trans- 
gressions." 

Lar.  Cat.  Quest.  22. — "  The  covenant  being  made  with  Mam,  as  a  public  person,  not 
for  himself  only,  but  for  his  posterity ;  all  mankind  descending  from  him  by  ordinary 
generation,  sinned  in  him  and  fell  with  him  in  that  first  transgression. 

"25.  The  sinfulness  of  that  estate  whcreinto  man  fell,  consisteth  in  the  guilt  of 
Manx's  first  sin,  the  want  of  that  righteousness  wherein  he  was  created,  and  the 
corruption  of  his  nature,  whereby  he  is  utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and  made  opposite 
unto  all  that  is  spiritually  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil,  and  that  continually ; 
which  is  commonly  called  original  $in,  and  from  which  do  proceed  all  actual  trans- 
gressions." 

Shorter  Cat.  CLuest.  18. — "The  sinfulness  of  that  estate,  whcreinto  man  fell,  consists 
in  the  guilt  of  Jldani's  first  sin,  the  want  of  original  righteousness,  and  the  corruption 
of  his  whole  nature,  which  is  commonly  called  original  sin  ;  together  with  all  actual 
transgressions  which  proceed  from  it." 

Charge  VII. 

"That  mankind  are  guilty,  i.e.  liable  to  punishment  on  account  of  the  sin  of 
Adam." 

Proof  l.p.  123.  "There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  they  are  condemned  io  eternal 
death,  or  held  to  be  guilty  of  his  sin,  without  participation  of  their  own,  or  without  per- 
sonal sin,  any  more  than  there  is  that  they  are  approved  by  the  work  of  Christ,  or  held 
to  be  personally  deserving,  without  embracing  his  offer,  and  receiving  hira  as  a 
Saviour. 


19 

Proof  2.  p.  127.  "  The  word  is  in  no  instance  used  to  express  the  idea  of  imputing 
that  to  one  which  belongs  to  another.  It  here  either  means  that  this  was  by  a  constitution 
of  divine  appointment  tliat  they  in  fact  became  sinners,  or  simply  declares  that  they  were  ■ 
so  in  fact.  There  is  not  the  sli^littst  intimation  that  it  was  by  imputation.  The  whole 
scope  of  the  argument  is,  moreover,  ai^ainst  this  ;  for  the  object  of  the  apostle  is  to 
show  not  that  they  were  charged  with  the  sin  of  another,  but  that  they  were  in  fact 
shiners  themselves.  If  it  means  that  they  were  condemned  for  his  act,  without  any 
concurrence  of  their  own  will,  then  the  correspondent  part  will  be  true,  that  all  are 
constituted  righteous  in  the  same  way ;  and  thus  the  doctrine  of  universal  salvation 
will  be  inevitable.  But  as  none  are  constituted  righteous  who  do  not  voluntarily  avail 
themselves  of  the  provisions  of  mercj',  so  it  follows  that  those  who  are  condenmed,  are 
not  condemned  for  the  sin  of  another  without  their  own  concurrence,  nor  unless  they 
personally  deserve  it. 

"  Shmers — Transgressors,  those  who  deserve  to  be  punished.  It  does  not  mean  those 
who  are  condemned  for  the  sin  of  another:  but  those  who  are  violaters  of  the  law  of 
God.  All  who  are  condemned  are  sinners.  They  are  not  innocent  persons  condemned 
for  the  crime  of  another.  Men  may  be  involved  in  the  coinequences  of  the  sins  of 
otliers  without  being  to  blame.  The  consequences  of  the  crimes  of  a  murderer,  a 
drunkard,  a  pirate,  may  pass  over  from  them,  and  affect  thousands,  and  whelm  them 
in  ruin.     But  this  does  not  prove  that  they  are  blame-Worthy. 

Proof  3.  p.  128.  "  Various  attempts  have  been  made  to  explain  this.  The  most 
common  has  been  that  Adam  was  the  representative  of  the  race  ;  that  he  was  a  cove- 
nant head,  and  that  his  sin  was  imputed  to  his  posterity,  and  that  they  were  held  liable 
to  punishment  for  it  as  if  they  had  committed  it  themselves.  But  to  this  there  are  great 
and  insuperable  objections.  +***  (3)  It  explains  nothinq;.  The  difficulty  still  re-" 
mains.  It  is  certainly  as  difficult  to  see  how,  in  a  just  administration,  the  sins  of  the 
guilty  should  be  charged  on  the  innocent,  as  to  contemplate  simply  the  universal  fact 
that  the  conduct  of  one  man  may  involve  his  family  in  the  consequences,  (4)  It  adds 
another  difficulty  to  the  subject.  It  not  only  explains  nothing,  removes  no  perplexity, 
but  it  compels  us  at  once  to  ask  the  question,  liow  can  this  be  just?  How  can  it  be 
right  to  charge  the  sins  of  the  guilty  on  those  who  had  no  participation  in  them?  How 
could  millions  be  responsible  for  the  sins  of  one  who  acted  long  before  they  had  an 
existence,  tnd  of  whose  act  they  had  no  consciousness,  and  in  which  they  had  no 
participation  ?" 

How  can  it  be  right  for  a  person  to  advance  such  doctrines,  who  has  professed  to 
believe  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  ?  Read 
the  following  passages  and  then  answer. 

Con.  chap.  vi.  3. — "  They  being  the  root  of  all  mankind,  the  guilt  of  this  sin  was 
imputed,  and  the  same  death  in  sin  and  corrupted  nature  conveyed  to  all  their  posterity, 
descending  from  them  by  ordinary  generation. 

"  6.  Every  sin,  both  original  and  actual,  being  a  transgression  of  the  righteous  law 
of  God,  and  contrary  thereunto,  doth,  in  its  own  nature,  bring  guilt  upon  the  sinner^ 
whereby  he  is  bound  over  to  the  wrath  of  God,  and  curse  of  the  law,  and  so  made 
subject  to  death,  with  all  miseries  spiritual,  temporal,  and  eternal." 

Lar.  Cat.  CLuest.  25. — "  The  sinfulness  of  that  estate  whereinto  man  fell,  consisteth 
in  the  guilt  of  Mam's  first  sin,  the  want  of  that  righteousness  wherein  he  was  created, 
and  the  corruption  of  his  nature,  whereby  he  is  utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and  made 
opposite  unto  all  that  is  spiritually  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil,  and  that 
continually ;  which  is  commonly  called  original  sin,  and  from  which  do  proceed  all 
actual  transgressions. 

"  27.  The"  fall  brought  upon  mankind  the  loss  of  communion  with  God,  his  displeasure 
and  curse ;  so  as  we  are  by  nature  children  of  w;ath,  bond  slaves  to  Satan,  and  justly 
liable  to  all  punishments  in  this  world  and  that  which  is  to  come." 

Shorter  Cat.  duest.  IS. — "The  sinfulness  of  that  estate,  whereinto  man  fell,  consists 
in  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin,  the  want  of  original  ri  Jiteousness,  and  the  corruption 
of  his  whole  nature,  which  is  commonly  called  original  sin  ;  together  with  all  actual 
transgressions  which  proceed  from  it. 

"  19.  All  mankind  by  their  fall  lost  communion  with  God,  are  under  his  wrath  and 
curse,  and  so  made  liable  to  all  the  miseries  of  this  life,  to  death  itself,  and  to  the  painf 
of  hell  for  ever." 

Charge  VIII. 

"  That  Christ  suffered  the  proper  p?nalty  of  the  law,  as  the  vicarious  substitute  of 
his  people,  and  thus  took  away  legally  their  sins  and  purchased  pardon." 

Proof  1.  "  All  the  passages  quoted  under  charges  6  and  7  are  referred  to  here.    If 


20 

the  sin  of  the  first  Adam  is  not  imputed  to  his  seed,  and  they  are  not  liable  to  punish- 
ment on  account  of  it;  then  it  evidently  follows,  thattlie  sin  of  his  seed  is  not  imputed 
to  the  second  Adam,  and  he  punished  on  account  of  it. 

Proof  2.  p.  89,  90. — "In  the  plan  of  salvation,  therefore,  he  has  shown  a  regard  to 
the  law,  by  appointing  his  Son  to  be  a  substitute  in  the  place  of  sinners  ;  not  to  endure 
its  precise  penalty,  for  his  sufferings  were  not  eternal,  nor  were  they  attended  with  re- 
morse of  conscience,  or  by  despair,  which  are  the  proper  7)ma%  of  the  law  ;  but  he 
endured  so  much  as  to  accomplish  the  same  ends  as  if  those  who  shall  be  saved  by 
him,  had  been  doomed  to  eternal  death.  That  is,  he  showed  that  the  law  could  not 
be  violated  without  introducing  suffering  ;  and  that  it  could  not  be  broken  with  impu- 
nity. He  showed  that  he  had  so  great  a  regard  for  it  that  he  M'ould  not  pardon  one  sin- 
ner without  an  atonement.  And  "thus  he  secured  the  proper  honour  to  his  character  as 
a  lover  of  his  law,  a  hater  of  sin,  and  a  just  God.  He  has  shown  that  if  sinners  do 
not  avail  themselves  of  the  offer  of  pardon,  by  Jesus  Ch-ist,  they  must  experience  in 
their  own  souls  forever,  the  pains  which  this  substitute  for  sinners  endured,  in  behalf 
of  men,  on  the  cross."  Thus,  no  principle  of  justice  has  been  abandoned  ;  no  claim  of 
his  law  has  been  let  down  ;  no  disposition  has  been  evinced  to  do  injustice  to  the  uni- 
verse, by  suffering  the  guilty  to  escape.  He  is,  in  all  this  great  transaction,  a  just 
moral  governor,  as  just  to  his  law,  to  himself,  to  his  Son,  to  the  universe,  when  he  par- 
dons, as  he  is  when  he  sends  the  incorrigible  sinner  down  to  hell.  A  full  compensation, 
an  equivalent  has  been  provided  by  the  sufferings  of  the  Saviour,  in  the  sinner's  stead, 
and  the  sinner  may  be  pardoned." 

How  opposite  this  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Church. 

Con.  chap.  viii.  4. — "  This  office  the  Lord  Jesus  did  most  willingly  undertake,  which, 
that  he  might  discharge,  he  was  made  under  the  law,  and  did  perfectly  fulfil  it ;  endured 
most  grievous  torments  immediately  in  his  soul,  and  most  painful  sufferings  in  his  body  ; 
was  crucified  and  died  ;  was  buried,  and  remained  under  the  power  of  death,  yet  saw 
no  corruption.  On  the  third  day  he  arose  from  the  dead,  with  the  same  body  in  which 
he  suff^jred  ;  with  which  he  also  ascended  into  heaven  and  there  sitteth  at  the  right-hand 
of  his  Father  making  intercession ;  and  shall  return  to  judge  men  and  angels,  at  the 
end  of  the  world. 

"  5.  The  Lord  Jesus,  by  his  perfect  obedience  and  sacrifice  of  himself,  which  he 
through  the  eternal  Spirit  once  ofl'ered  up  unto  God,  hath  fully  satisfied  the  justice  of 
his  Father ;  and  purchased  not  only  reconciliation,  but  an  everlasting  inheritance  in 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  for  all  those  whom  the  Father  hath  given  unto  him." 

Chap,  xi,  3. — "Christ,  by  his  obedience  and  death,  did  fully  discharge  the  debt  of  all 
those  that  are  thus  justified,  and  did  make  a  proper,  real,  and  full  satisfaction  to  his  Fa- 
ther's justice  in  their  behalf.  Yet,  in  as  much  as  he  was  given  by  the  Father  for  them, 
and  his  obedience  and  satisfaction  accepted  in  their  stead,  and  both  freely,  not  for  any 
thing  in  them,  their  justification  is  only  of  free  grace ;  that  both  the  exact  justice,  and 
rich  grace  of  God,  might  be  glorified  in  the  justification  of  sinners." 

Lar.  Cat.  Clupst.  49. — "Christ  humbled  ifiimself  in  his  death,  in  that  having  been 
betrayed  by  Judas,  forsaken  by  his  disciples,  scorned  and  rejected  by  the  world,  con- 
demned by  PUate,  and  tormented  by  his  persecutors ;  having  also  conflicted  with  the 
terrors  of  death  and  the  powers  of  darkness,  felt  and  borne  the  weight  of  God's  wrath, 
he  laid  down  his  life  an  offering  for  sin,  enduring  the  painful,  shameful,  and  cursed 
death  of  the  cross." 

Shorter  Cat.  CLuest.  25. — "Christ  executeth  the  office  of  a  priest,  in  his  once  offering 
npof  liiinself  a  sacrifice  to  satisfy  divine  justice,  and  reconcile  us  to  God,  and  in  making 
continual  intercession  for  us." 

Charge  IX. 

"  That  the  righteousness,  i.  e.  the  active  obedience  of  Christ  to  the  law,  is  imputed 
to  his  people  for  their  justification  ;  bo  that  they  are  righteous  in  the  eye  of  the  lavr, 
and  therefore  justified." 

Proof  1.  p.  28.  (3)  "The  phrase  righteousness  of  God,  is  equivalent  to  God's  plan  of 
justifying  men  ;  his  scheme  of  declaring  them  just  in  th  e  sight  of  the  law  ;  or  of  acqnit- 
ting  them  from  pmiiihrnent,  and  admitting  them  to  favour.  In  this  sense  it  stands  oppos- 
ed to  m(7»i'»  plan  of  justification,  i.e.  by  his  own  works.  God's  plan  is  by  taith. 
The  woid  to  justify,  Sckixiow,  means  properly  to  be  just,  to  be  iniioce^ii,  to  be  righteous. 
It  then  means  to  declare,  or  treat  as  righteous,  as  when  a  man  is  charged  with  an  of- 
fence and  is  acquitted.  If  the  crime  alleged  is  not  proved  against  him,  he  is  declared 
by  the  law  to  be  innocent.  It  then  means  to  treat  as  if  innocent  to  regard  as  innocent  ; 
that  is,  to  pardon,  to  forgive,  and  consequently  to  treat  as  if  the  ofl^ence  had  not  occur- 
red.   It  does  not  mean  that  the  man  did  not  commit  the  offence,  or  that  the  law  might 


21 

not  have  held  him  anstoerable  for  it ;  but  that  the  offence  is  forgiven  ;  and  it  is  consis- 
tent to  receive  the  offender  into  favour,  and  treat  him  as  if  he  had  not  committed  it." 

"  In  regard  to  this  plan  it  may  be  observed,  (1)  That  it  is  not  to  d  clare  that  men 
are  innocent  and  pure.  That  would  not  be  true.  The  truth  is  just  the  reverse;  and 
God  dors  not  esteem  men  to  be  different  from  what  thoy  are.  (2)  It  is  not  to  take  part 
with  the  sinner,  and  to  mitigate  his  offences.  It  a  imits  them  to  their  full  extent,  and 
makes  him  feel  them  also.  (3)  It  is  not  that  we  become  partakers  of  the  essential 
righteousness  of  God.  That  is  impossible.  (4)  It  is  not  that  his  righteousness  be- 
comes ours.  That  is  not  true  ;  and  there  is  no  intelligible  sense  in  which  that  can  be 
understood.  But  it  is  God's  plan  for  pardming  sin,  and  for  treating  us  as  if  we  had 
not  committed  it,  that  is,  adopting  us  as  his  children,  and  admitting  us  to  heaven,  on 
the  ground  of  what  the  Lord  Jesus  has  done  in  our  stead.  Tliis  is  God's  plan.  Men 
seek  to  save  themselves  by  their  own  vorks.  God's  plan  is  to  save  them  by  the  me- 
rits of  Jesus  Christ." 

Proof  2.  p.  84,  85.  "  Even  the  righteousness  of  God.  The  Apostle,  having  stated 
that  the  di  sign  of  the  Gospel  was  to  reveal  a  new  plan  of  becoming  just  in  tiie  sight  of 
God,  proceeds  here  more  fully  to  explain  it.  The  explanation  which  he  offers,  makes 
it  plain  that  the  phrase  so  often  used  by  him,  '  righteousness  of  God,'  it  does  not  refer 
to  an  attribute  of  God,  but  to  his  plan  of  making  men  righteous.  Here  he  says,  that 
it  is  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ ;  but  surely  an  attribute  of  God  is  not  produced  by  faith 
in  Jesus  Christ.  It  means  God's  mode  of  regarding  men  as  righteous  through  their  belief 
in  Jesus  Christ.  '  God  has  promised  that  they  who  believe  in  Christ  shall  be  pardon- 
ed and  saved.  This  is  his  plan  in  distinction  from  the  plan  of  those  who  seek  to  be 
justified  by  works.' 

"Being  justified.— Being  treated  as  if  righteous,  that  is,  being  regarded  and  treated 
as  if  they  had  kept  the  law.  The  apostlehas  shown  that  they  could  notbe  so  regarded 
and  treated  by  any  merit  of  their  own,  or  by  personal  obedience  to  the  law.  He  now 
affirms  that  if  they  were  so  treated,  it  must  be  by  mere  favour,  and  as  a  matter,  not  of 
right,  but  of  gift.     This  is  the  essence  of  the  Gospel." 

Proof  3.  p.  94,  95,  as  quoted  under  charge  IV  (7)  and  p.  96.  "God  judges  things 
as  they  are  ;  and  sinners  who  are  justified,  he  judges  not  as  if  they  were  pure,  or  as  if 
thf^y  had  a  claim  ;  but  he  regards  them  as  united  by  faith  to  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  in  titis 
relation  he  judges  that  they  should  be  treated  as  his  friends,  though  they  have  been,  are,  and 
always  loill  be  personally  undeserving.  But  if  the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  was,  that 
the  entire  righteousness  of  Christ  was  set  over  to  them,  was  really  and  truly  theirs, 
and  was  travsferred  to  them  in  any  sense,  with  what  propriety  could  the  apostle  say, 
that  God  justified  the  ungodly  ?  If  they  have  all  the  righteousness  of  Christ  as  their 
own,  as  really  and  truly  theirs,  as  if  they  had  wrought  it  out  themselves,  they  are  not 
'  ungodly.^  They  are  eminently  pure  and  holy,  and  have  a  claim,  not  of  grace,  but  of 
debt,  to  the  very  highest  rewards  of  heaven."  p.  97.  "  Unto  xohom.  God  reputeth 
righteousness. — Whom  God  treats  as  righteous,  or  as  entitled  to  his  favour  in  a  way 
different  from  his  conformity  to  the  law.  This  is  f  lund  in  Psalm  xxxii.  And  the 
whole  scope  and  design  of  the  Psalm  is  to  show  the  blessedness  of  the  man  who  is 
forgiven,  and  whose  sins  are  not  charged  on  him,  but  who  is  freed  from  the  punishment 
duo  to  his  sins.     Being  thus  pardoned,  he  is  treated  as  ari^ihteous  man." 

Proof  4.  p.  127.  By  the  obedimce  of  one. — Of  Christ.  This  stands  opposed  to  the 
disobe Hence  of  Adam,  and  evidently  includes  the  entire  work  of  the  Redeemer,  which  has 

a  bearing  on  the  salvation  of  men.     Phil.  ii.  8.    He became  obedient  unto  death." 

P.  21.     "0/  God''s  righteousness.     Not  of  the  personal  holiness  of  God,  but  of  GoiPs 
plan  of  Justifying  men,  or  of  declaring  them  righteous  by  faith  in  his  Son.     Here  God's 
plan  stands  opposed  to  their  efforts  to  make  themselves" righteous  by  their  own  works." 
How  irreconcileable  this  is  to  our  Standards  is  seen. 

Con.  chap,  xi.  1. — "Those  whom  God  efflctually  calleth,  he  also  freely  justifieth  ; 
not  by  infusing  righteousness  into  them,  but  by  pardonins  their  sins,  and  by  accounting 
and  accepting  their  persons  as  righteous :  not  for  any  thing  wrought  in  th.  m,  or  done 
by  them,  but  for  Christ's  sake  alone  :  not  by  imputing  faith  itself,  the  act  of  believing, 
or  any  other  evangelical  obedience  to  them,  as  their  righteousness ;  but  by  imputing 
the  obedience  and  satisfaction  uf  Christ  unto  them,  they  receivingand  restingon  him  and 
his  righteousness  by  faith  ;  which  faith  they  have  not  of  themselves,  it  is  the  gift  of  God. 
"  2.  Faith,  thus  receiving  and  resting  on  Christ  and  his  righteousness,  is  the  alone 
instrument  of  justification  ;  yet  is  not  alone  in  the  person  justified,  but  is  ever 
accompanied  with  all  other  saving  graces,  and  is  no  dead  faitli ;  but  worketh  by  love. 

"  3.  Christ,  by  his  obedience  and  death,  did  fully  discharge  the  debt  of  all  those 
that  are  thus  justified,  and  did  make  a  proper,  real,  and  full  satisfaction  to  his  Father's 


22 

justice  in  their  behalf.  Yet,  inasmudi  as  he  was  given  by  the  Father  for  them,  and 
his  obedience  and  satisfaction  accepted  in  their  stead,  and  both  freely,  not  for  any 
tiling  in  thom,  their  justification  is  only  of  free  ^race  ;  that  both  the  exact  justice,  and 
rich  grace  of  God,  might  lie  iilniified  in  the  justification  of  sinners." 

Lar.  Caf,  Glucst.  70. — "  Justification  is  an  act  of  Goal's  free  grace  unto  sinners,  in  which 
he  pardoneth  all  their  sin,  acceptcth  and  accounteth  their  persons  righteous  in  liis  siglit ; 
not  for  any  thing  wrought  in  them,  or  done  by  thein,  but  only  for  the  perfect  obedience 
and  full  satisfaction  of  Christ,  by  God  imputed  to  them,  and  received  by  faith  alone, 

"  71.  Although  Christ  by  his  obedience  and  death,  did  make  a  proper,  real,  and  full 
satisfaction  to  God's  justice  in  the  behalf  of  them  that  are  justified:  yet  in  as  much  as 
God  acceptcth  the  satisfaction  from  a  surety,  which  he  might  have  demanded  of 
them  ;  and  did  provide  this  surety,  his  only  Son,  imputing  his  righteousness  to  them, 
and  requiring  nothing  of  them  for  their  justification  but  faith,  which  also  is  his  gift, 
their  justification  is  to  them  of  free  grace. 

"  72.  Justifying  faith  is  a  saving  grace,  wrought  in  the  heart  of  a  sinner  by  the  Spirit 
and  word  of  God  ;  whereby  he,  being  convinced  of  his  sin  and  misery,  and  of  the 
disability  in  himself  and  all  other  creatures  to  recover  him  out  of  his  lost  condition,  not 
only  assentcth  to  the  truth  of  the  promise  of  the  Gospel,  but  receiveth  -ind  resteth  upon 
Christ  and  his  righteousness  therein  held  forth,  for  pardon  of  sin,  and  for  the  accepting 
and  accounting  of  his  person  righteous  in  the  sight  of  God  for  salvation." 

Shorter  Cat.  33. — "Justification  is  an  act  of  God's  free  grace,  wherein  he  pardoneth 
all  our  sins,  and  acceptcth  us  as  righteous  in  his  sight,  only  for  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  imputed  to  us,  and  received  by  faith  alone. 
Charge  X. 

Mr.  Barnes  also  teaches,  in  opposition  to  the  Standards,  that  justification  is  simply 
pardon. 

Proof  1.  pp.  28,  29,  (already  quoted,  p.  17.)  "  The  phrase  nghlemimess  of  God  is 
equivalent  to  GoPs  plan  of  justifying  men:  his  sclieme  of  declaring  them  Justin  the 
sight  of  the  Into  ;  or  of  acquitting  them  from  punishment,  and  admitting  them  to  favour. 

2.  "  In  regard  to  this  plan,  it  may  be  observed  (4.)  It  is  not  that  his  righteousness 
becomes  ours.  This  is  not  true ;  and  there  is  no  intelligihle  sense  in  which  that  can 
be  understood.  But  it  is  God's  plan  for  pardoning  sin,  and  for  treating  us  as  if  we  had 
not  committed  it, 

3.  p.  1 10.     "  Being  noiv  justified.     Pardoned  ;  accepted  as  his  friends, 

4.  p.  124,  "  Unto  justification.  The  work  of  Christ  is  designed  to  have  reference  to 
many  offences,  so  as  to  produce  pardon  of  justification  in  regard  to  them  all."  The 
comment  on  chap.  v.  19.  '  For  as  by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners, 
so  by  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made  righteous,'  is  thus  summed  up,  pp.  127, 
123.  "  The  sense  of  the  verse  is  this:  'As  in  consequence  of  the  sin  of  one,  the  many 
became  sinners,  without  explaining  the  mode  in  which  it  is  done  ;  so  the  many  became 
righteous  in  the  mode  and  on  the  terms  which  are  explained  ?'  Righteous,  Justified. 
Free  from  condemnation, 

5.  p.  182.  "/<  is  God  that  justified.  That  is,  who  hns  pardoned  them,  and  ad- 
mitted them  to  his  favour;  and  pronounced  ihvm  just  in  his  sight." 

6.  p.  217.  "The  moment  a  sinner  bcliev(  s,  therefore  he  is  justified;  his  sins  are 
pardoned  ;   and  he  is  introduced  into  the  favour  of  God." 

The  inconsistency  of  this  with  Standards  is  evident.  See  Con.,  Lar.  Cat,  Sh.  Cat., 
and  Scriptures  quot  d  under  charge  ix,  also  Pcom.  vi.  16 — 13, 19.   1  Pet.  i,  14 — 22. 

The  Presbytery  decided  that  these  charges  were  not  sustained. 
They,  at  the  same  time,  however,  declare  "that  the  Christian  spirit 
manifested  by  the  prosecutor  during  the  progress  of  the  trial,  ren- 
ders it  inexpedient  to  inflict  any  censure  on  him  "  From  their 
decision  Dr.  Junkin  appealed  to  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia.  Here 
an  unexpected  difficulty  arose  from  the  unprecedented,  and  as  we 
believe,  highly  contumacious  conduct  of  (he  Presbytery,  in  with- 
holding their  records.  But  the  Synod,  after  much  deliberation, 
proceeded  and  issued  the  case,  adopting,  by  a  large  majority,  the 
following  resolutions  : — 

"Resolved,  1.  That  in  view  of  the  proof  presented  to  Synod,  and  of  the  whole  case, 
the  decision  of  the  (Assembly's)  2d  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  in  the  case  of  ther 


charges  of  the  said  George  Junkin  against  the  said  Albert  Barnes,  be  and  the  same 
hereby  is  reversed,  as  contrary  to  truth  and  righteousness,  and  the  Appeal  declared  to 
be  sustained. 

"  2.  That  some  of  the  errors  alleged  in  the  charges  to  be  held  by  the  said  Albert 
Barnes  are  fundamental ;  and  all  of  them  contrary  to  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  in  the  United  States  ;  and  that  they  do  contravene  the  system  of  truth  therein 
taui^ht,  and  set  forth  in  the  word  of  God. 

""3.  That  the  said  Albert  Barnes  be,  and  he  hereby  is,  suspended  from  the  exercise 
of  all  the  functions  proper  to  the  gospel  ministry,  until  he  shall  retract  tlie  errors  hereby 
condemned,  and  give  satisfactory  evidence  of  repentance." 

From  this  decision  Mr.  Barnes  appealed,  and  complained  of  the 
various  steps  by  which  the  Synod  came  to  it.  Such  is  the  history 
of  this  case,  and  thus  it  came  before  the  Assembly.  Although,  in 
the  opinion  of  many,  Mr.  Barnes  liad  no  right  to  appeal,  not  hav- 
ing submitted  to  a  regular  trial  before  the  Synod,  and  although  the 
technical  irregularities,  connected  with  the  case,  were  such  that  the 
Chairman  of  the  Judicial  Committee  declared  it  might,  with  pro- 
priety, be  remitted  to  the  Court  below,  yet  all  difficulties  and  irre- 
gularities were  overruled,  and  the  Assembly  took  it  up.  Mr.  Barnes 
read  his  appeal  and  complaint  with  the  reasons  of  them,  and  was 
heard  fully,  in  explanation  and  defence  of  his  sentiments.  He 
was  understood  by  many  as  retracting  most  of  his  errors,  and^it  was 
remarked  that  although  the  explanations  and  retractions  were 
made  in  a  very  cautious  and  guarded  manner,  yet  if  they  were 
committed  to  writing,  the  grounds  of  the  prosecution  would,  in  a 
great  measure,  be  removed.  Dr.  Junkin  was  then  heard  in  support 
of  the  charges  he  had  preferred — and  Mr.  Barnes  rephed,  under 
strong  excitement,  and  with  much  bitterness  against  the  prose- 
cutor.— He  now  affirmed  that  he  had  made  no  retractions,  and 
intended  to  make  none,  and  repeated  substantially,  what  he  has 
published  in  the  preface  to  the  last  edition  of  his  notes  on  the 
Romans. 

After  a  brief  rejoinder  from  Dr.  Junkin,  the  roll  was  called,  to 
give  the  members  an  opportunity  to  express  their  opinions — and  to 
our  surprise  and  pain,  tlie  disclosure  was  now  made  that  a  majority 
of  the  Assembly  were  in  favour  of  sustaining  Mr.  Barnes — some 
declaring  that  their  own  sentiments  could  not  have  been  more 
exactly  expressed  ;  and  others  avowing  that  they  difleredffrom  him 
only  in  having  gone  much  farther  than  he,  in  what  we  consider 
departures  from  our  standards.  When  the  final  question  was  put, 
"sustain  or  not  sustain''  the  appeal  and  complaint,  it  was  carried 
in  the  affirmative  by  a  vote  of  134  to  96.*  Against  this  decision 
the  following  protest  was  entered  : — 

"  The  undersigned,  members  of  the  General  Assembly,  who  were  of  the  opinion 
that  the  appeal  of  the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes  should  be  sustained  only  in  part,  and  that  a 
modified  decision  should  be  madf,  beg  leave  to  present  to  the  Assembly  this  brief 
explaration  of  their  views,  and  desire  that  it  may  be  entered  on  the  minutes,  as  their 
Protest  against  the  course  which  has  been  pursued  in  this  case. 

"  1.     They  explicitly  declare,  that  in  their  opinion  the  refusal  of  the  Presbytery  to 

*  It  will  be  recollected  that  in  all  votes  connected  with  this  case,  the  Synod  of  Phila- 
delphia, were  out  of  the  house. 


24 

bring  their  records  before  the  Synod,  and  of  Mr.  Barnes,  to  appear  and  plead  in  defence 
when  their  objections  had  been  overruled,  was  irregular  and  censurable ;  and  that 
although  the  Synod  acted  in  a  manner  that  was  questionable,  and  perhaps  injudicious, 
in  tryine;  the  appeal  of  Dr.  Junkin,  without  the  records  of  the  Presbytery,  and  in  the 
absence  of  Mr.  Barnes,  who  had  declined  makiiia;  any  defence,  yet  this  irregularity 
was  not  of  such  a  nature  as  to  annul  their  proceedings. 

"  2.  They  were  of  the  opinion  that  the  chars^es  brought  against  Mr.  Barnes  by  Dr. 
Junkin,  were  at  least  partly  substantiated,  and  that  on  very  important  topics  of  the 
system  of  doctrine  contained  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  the  "Word  of  God;  and 
that,  therefore,  the  appeal  could  be  sustained  only  in  a  modified  sense,  if  at  all  on  this 
ground,' without  an  implied  approbation  of  liis  doctrinal  views. 

"  3.  Further,  they  were  of  the  opinion,  that  inasmuch  as  some  of  the  charges  were 
not  fully,  if  at  all  sustained  ;  and  it  may  be  doubted  whether  the  Synod  ought,  as  the 
circumstances  of  the  case  appeared  to  be,  to  have  inflicted  the  censure  of  suspension  ; 
and  Mr.  Barnes,  during  the  progress  of  this  trial,  exhibited  some  important  alterations 
of  his  book,  and  made  such  explanations  and  disavowals  of  the  sentiments  ascribed  to 
liim,  as  were  satisfactory  in  a  considerable  degree  ;  the  removal  of  his  suspension 
might  be  deemed  proper  and  safe ;  they  were  therefore  willing,  on  this  account,  to 
concur  in  this  measure ;  but  did  not  desire  to  sustain  the  appeal  in  an  unqualified 
sense. 

"The  undersigned  therefore  desire  to  place  themselves  aright,  in  the  discharge  of 
their  official  duty,  before  this  Assembly,  and  the  Church  with  which  they  are  con- 
nected, and  the  whole. Christian  (Jhurch,  so  far  as  these  transactions  may  be  known  ; 
and  cannot  consent  to  be  understood  as  giving  countenance  to  irregular  proceedings 
in  the  judicatories  of  the  Church,  or  those  who  are  amenable  to  them  ;  or  as  overlook- 
ing erroneous  doctrinal  sentiments  ;  or  as  desiring  to  exercise  undue  severity  towards 
the  appellant.  And  they  cannot  withhold  the  expression  of  their  regret,  that  all  their 
efforts  to  procure  a  justly  modified  decision,  were  defeated  by  the  positions  occupied 
by  different  and  opposite  portions  of  the  Assembly,  in  regard  to  this  case  ;  nor  will 
they  conceal  that  they  have  painful  apprehensions  that  these  things  will  lead  to  ex- 
tended and  increased  dissension,  and  endanger  the  disruption  of  the  holy  bonds  which 
hold  us  together  as  one  Church. 
"Pittsburg,  June  7th,  1836. 

"James  Hoge,  Samuel  Miller,  N.  Ewing,  John  McElhenny,  John  H.  Van  Court, 
Benjamin  Ogden,  Thomas  A.  Ogden,  Francis  McFarland,  John  M.  C.  Bartley,  James 
Wharcy,  Saniuel  S.  Davis,  D.  McMartin  Jr.,  Samuel  L.  Graham,  Evander  McNair, 
John  S.  Galloway,  Samuel  Henderson." 

If  tlie  proceedings  had  been  arrested  here  the  preceding  vote 
would  have  determined  nothing  respecting  the  doctrinal  views 
which  are  held  in  the  Presbyterian  Church — since  some  voted  in 
the  affirmative  purely  on  constitutional  grounds,  believing  that  the 
Synod,  under  the  existing  circumstances,  were  not  warranted  in 
proceeding  and  issuing  the  case.  But  the  proceedings  did  not  end 
here.  The  following  resolution  was  introduced  by  Dr.  Miller, 
bringing  the  doctrinal  question  fairly,  and  in  a  form  unembarrassed 
by  questions  of  Church  order,  before  the  Assembly  : — 

"  Resolved,  That  while  this  General  Assembly  has  thought  proper  to  remove  the 
sentence  of  suspension  under  which  the  Rev.  Mr.  Barnes  was  placed  by  the  Synod  of 
Philadelphia  ;  yet  the  judgment  of  the  Assembly  is,  that  Mr.  Barnes,  in  his  Notes  on 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  has  published  opinions,  materially  at  variance  with  the 
Confession  of  Faith  ot  the  Presltyterian  Church,  and  with  the  word  of  God  ;— espe- 
cially with  regard  to  original  sin,  the  relation  of  man  to  Adam,  and  justification  by 
faith  in  the  atoning  sacrifice  and  righteousness  of  the  Redeemer.  The  Assembly 
consider  the  manner  in  which  Mr.  Barnes  has  controverted  the  language  and  doctrine 
of  our  public  standards,  as  highly  reprehensible,  and  as  adapted  to  pervert  the  minds 
of  the  rising  generation,  from  the  simplicity  and  purity  of  the  Gospel  plan.  And 
although  somc^of  the  most  objectionable  statements  and  expressions  which  appeared 
in  the  earlier  editions  of  the  work  in  question,  have  been  either  removed,  or  so  far 
modified  or  explained,  as  to  render  them  more  in  accordance  with  our  public  formula- 
ries •  still  the  Assembly  considers  the  work,  even  in  its  present  amended  form,  aa 


25 

containing  representations  which  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  letter  or  spirit  of  our 
public  standards;  and  would  solemnly  admonish  Mr.  Barnes  again  to  review  thia 
«vork  ;  to  modify  still  further  the  statements  which  have  gi-ieved  his  brethren;  and  to 
be  more  carefulin  time  to  come,  to  study  (he  purity  and  peace  of  the  Church." 

This  resolution  was  rejected  by  a  vote,  122  to  109.  Here  we 
would  simply  ask  how  can  those  who  are  so  far  from  being  agreed 
walk  together  1  How  can  conscientious  men  holding  sentimenta 
so  opposite,  honestly,  and  in  good  faith,  adopt  the  same  standards, 
and  contmue  in  peace  under  the  same  ecclesiastical  organization  1 
Against  the  decision  of  the  Assembly,  on  this  resolutioti,  the  fol- 
lowing protest  was  presented.  Others  who  had  voted  for  the  resolu- 
tion doubtless  would  have  signed  the  protest  had  they  been  present, 
but  having  left  the  Assembly  their  names  were  not  added  : — 

"  Whereas  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  did  by  their  vote  on 
the  7th  inst.  reject  a  resolution  disapprovino;  some  of  the  doctrinal  statements  con- 
tained in  Barnes'  Notes  on  the  Romans — which  resolution,  especially  under  the  pecu- 
liar circumstances  of  the  case,  the  undersigned  considered  of  high  importance  to  tha 
church  with  which  we  are  connected,  to  the  cause  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,  and  to  the  just  exhibition  of  his  grace  and  truth ;  we  whose  names  are  sub- 
scribed, feel  constrained,  in  the  name  of  the  great  Head  of  the  Church,  solemnly  to 
protest  against  said  decision,  for  the  following  reasons  ;   viz. 

"  1.  Because  we  believe  that  the  constitutional  standads  of  the  church,  in  their 
plain  and  obvious  meaning,  and  in  the  sense  in  which  they  have  always  been  received, 
are  the  rule  of  judgment  by  which  all  doctrinal  controversies  are  to  be  decided.  That 
it  IS  the  duty  of  the  chu.ch  to  maintain  inviolate  her  doctrine  and  order,  agreeably  to 
those  standards;  to  bear  her  decided  testimony  against  all  deviations  from  them,  and 
not  to  countenance  them,  even  by  implication.  Yet  in  the  above  decision,  there  was, 
as  we  believe,  a  departure  from  our  constitutional  rule,  a  refusal  to  bear  testimony 
against  errors,  with  an  impliod  approbation  of  them,  and  a  constructive  denial  that 
Ministers  of  the  Gospel  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  are  under  solemn  obligations  to 
conform  in  their  doctrinal  sentiments  to  our  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms, 

"2.  Because  the  errors  contemplated  in  the  aforesaid  resolution,  do  not  consist 
merely,  nor  chiefly,  in  inaccurate  or  ambiguous  expressions  and  mistaken  illustrations, 
but  in  sentiments  and  opinions,  respecting  the  great  and  important  doctrines  of  the 
Gospel,  which  are  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  statement  of  those  doctrines,  made  in 
the  (Jonfession  of  Faith,  and  revealed  in  the  Word  of  God.  We  sincerely  and  firmly 
believe  that  Mr.  Barnes  has  denied,  and  that  in  a  sneering  manner,  that  Adam  wa« 
the  covenant  head  of  the  human  race  ;  that  all  mankind  sinned  in  him  as  such,  and 
were  thus  brought  under  the  penalty  of  transgression  ;  that  Christ  sufTered  the  pen- 
alty of  the  law  when  he  died  for  sin  ;  and  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  im- 
puted to  believers  for  justification.  These  and  similar  doctrinal  views  we  regard  as 
material  variations  from  our  standards,  as  dangerous  in  themselves,  and  as  contraven- 
ing some  of  the  leading  principles  of  our  system,  such  as  man's  complete  dependence, 
and  the  perfect  harmony  of  justice  and   ^race  in  the  salvation  of  the  sinner. 

"3.  Because  this  expression  of  approbation  of  his  opinions  was  passed  after,  as  we 
believe,  it  had  been  clearly  and  sufficiently  proved  to  the  Assembly,  that  Mr.  Barnei 
had  denied  these  important  truths,  and  had  expressed  opinions  respecting  original  sin, 
the  nature  of  faith,  and  the  nature  of  justification,  which  cannot  be  reconciled  with 
our  standards  ;  and  after,  instead  of  retracting  any  of  his  doclrinal  opinions,  he  had 
declared  expressly  before  the  Assembly,  and  published  in  the  preface  to  the  last  edi- 
tion of  his  Notes  on  the  Romans,  that  he  had  not  changed,  but  held  them  still,  and 
was  determined  to  preach  them  until  he  died. 

"  For  these  reasons,  and  for  the  glory  of  God,  that  we  may  preserve  a  conscience  void 
of  oflfence,  we  request  that  this  our  solemn  protest  may  be  entered  on  the  minutes  of 
the  Assemblv. 

"  W.  W.  Phillips,  J,  McEIroy,  James  Hoge,  Samuel  S.Davis,  Francis  McFarland, 
Joseph  Pmith,  James  McCurdy,  Jacob  F,  Price,  W.  L.  Brackinridge,  H.  M,  Koontz, 
P.  J.  Sparrow,  Robert  Johnston,  Joseph  Harbeson,  John  H.  Culbertson,  W.  P,  Al- 
rich,  J,  S,  Wilson,  T.  C,  Stuart,  J,  McClintock,  Nathaniel  Todd,  Alexander  R.  Curry, 
George  Anderson,  James  McFarran,  John  Bemiss,  John  M.  C.  Bartley,  Samuel  Mc- 

4 


26 

Cluestin,  William  James,  Ananias  Piatt,  Duncan  McMartin,  Edwin  Downer,  H.  M» 
Hopkins,  James  V.  Henry,  Russel  J.  Vlinor,  William  Marshall,  James  Lenox,  Sam- 
uel Boyd,  William  Wallace,  (N.  Y.)  Samuel  Vliller,  B.  O^ien,  James  Seabrook,  Ja- 
cob (Jiistner,  Jos.'ph  Campbell,  Jam-^s  Kennedy,  John  Stinso  i,  Samuel  Hende  sor.  > 
J.  Coult.^r,  Joel  Stoneroid,  N.  livvinz;,  James  Alexander,  Jos  pli  D.  i-ay,  Robert 
Highlands,  John  Miller,  J.  Eaton,  Hubert  Porter,  Joseph  MeFarran,  C.  Vt-landin^- 
ham,  Alexander  Write,  R.  Johnson,  James  Wilson,  James  Rowland,  Archibald  Hanna, 
John  blliot,  William  Wallace,  (Lan.)  Robert  Smith,  J.  S.  Galloway,  S.  Scovil,  B.  C. 
Swan,  G.  Bishop,  William  Dunn,  M.  <J.  Wallace,  J.  S.  Weaver, 'Samuel  D(;nnell, 
B.  F.  Spillman,  W.  A.  G.  Posey,  J.  S.  Berryman,  D.  S.  Todd,  Lewis  Collins,  Wil- 
liam Williamson,  James  Wharf  y,  John  JVlcElhenny,  Thomas  Baird,  E.  W.  Caruth- 
ers,  Archibald  McCallum,  R.  H.  Kilpatrick,  John  S.  McCutchan,  T.  A.  Ogden,  A.  A. 
Campbell,  John  Ino;ram,  S.  B.  Lewcrs,  J.  Le  Roy  Davies,  Thonms  L.  Dunlap,  Euse- 
nius  A.  Nesbit,  Gilbert  T.  Snowlen,  Horace  S.  Pratt,  John  H.  Van  Court,  F.'H. 
Porter,  Thomas  R.  Borden,  T.  C.  Stuart,  John  R.  Hutchinson,  David  Morrow,  J.  H. 
Gray." 

We  come  now  to  noiice  the  most  painful  and  biimiliating  part  of 
the  whole  proceedings  in  this  case — we  inean  the  paper,  purporting 
to  be  an  answer  to  the  above  protest,  prepared  by  Dis,  Sivinner 
and  AUan,  together  with  Mr.  Brainerd,  and  entered  on  the  Minutes 
by  order  of  the  Assembly.  When  the  motion  Avas  made  to  have  it 
entered  on  the  miimtes,  a  worthy  brother  from  the  South  renjarked, 
that  we  might  as  well  say  white  was  black — and  we  believe  every 
candid  man,  who  heaid  the  declarations  which  weie  made  duiing 
the  deliberations  of  the  Assembly  on  this  question,  or  who  will 
make  himself  acquainted  with  the  sentiments  which  Mr.  Barnes' 
has  published  in  his  Notes  on  the  Romans,  and  compare  them  with 
the  statements  contained  in  this  paper,  will  niake  the  same  remark. 
Thus  we  are  told  in  the  1st  place  : — 

"  1.  That  by  their  decision  they  do  not  intend  to,  and  do  not,  in  fact,  make  them- 
selves responsible  for  all  the  phraseology  of  Mr.  Barnes  ;  some  of  which  is  not  suffi- 
ciently enarded,  and  is  liable  to  be  misunderstood  ;  and  which  we  doubt  not  Mr. 
Barnes,  with  reference  to  his  usefulm  ss,  and  the  peace  of  the  Church,  will  modify  so 
as  to  pnvunt,  as  far  as  may  be,  the  posMbility  of  misconception." 

Now,  it  is  well  known  to  all  who  were  in  the  Assembly — that  Dr. 
Skiimer,  who  presented  this  paper  as  Chairman,  did  identify  himself 
with  Mr.  Barnes,  and  declared  that  no  man  could  have  more  accu- 
rately expressed  iiis  own  sentiments — that  he  fairly  represented  the 
new  school  brethren — that  if  Mi'.  Barnes  were  condemned  they 
would  be  condemned.  He  also  asserted,  that  the  notes  on  the 
Roiuaus  are  in  accordance  with  the  sentiments  of  the  New  Eng- 
land divines  generally  ;  are  approved  by  them,  and  among  others 
by  Dr.  Woods,  of  Andover.  Dr.  Peters  declared  that  he  not  only 
approved  of  the  doctrines,  but  of  the  language  employed  by  Mr. 
Barnes.  "When  I  heaid,"said  he,  "of  the  sentence  of  his  suspen- 
sion I  regarded  it  as  a  blow  struck  at  one-half  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church — I  shall  not  vote  to  restore  him  on  the  ground  of  toleration; 
he  has  aright  to  be  a  mii]ister  in  our  connection  ;  if  any  one  is  to 
be  tolerated  it  is  the  prosecutor.  Yes,  Sir,  the  time  has  come  when 
the  question  is,  whether  such  men  are  to  be  tolerated  in  the  Pres- 
byterian Church.  No,  Sir,  I  do  not  even  condenm  his  indiscretions. 
It  is  time  to  have  the  question  settled,  whether  in  this  I9th  century 


27 

we  may  exercise  the  liberty  of  using  language  adapted  to  the  age." 
And  yet,  after  such  sentiments  as  these,  (and  this  is  but  a  fair  sam- 
ple of  what  was  said  by  scoies,  except  that  it  is  more  decorously 
expressed  ;)  these  men  have  tlie  effrontery  to  enter  upon  the  Mi- 
nutes, when  they  knew  it  would  meet  the  public  eye,  tliat  "they 
do  not  intend  to,  and  do  not,  in  fact,  make  tliemselves,"  &c. 
They  say  2dly  : — 

"2.  AIuc'i  less  do  the  Assembly  adopt  as  doctrines,  consistent  with  our  standards, 
and  to  be  toleralid  in  our  Church,  the  errors  alleged  by  the  prosecutor,  as  contained 
in  the  Book  on  the  Romans.  It  was  a  question  of  fact,  whether  the  errors  alhged  are 
co'itained  in  the  book  ;  and  by  the  laws  of  expositio'i,  m  conscientious  exercise  of  their 
own  rights  and  duties,  the  Assembly  have  come  to  tlie  conclusion  tiiat  the  book  does 
not  teach  the  errors  charged." 

It  appears  to  us  that  here  is  certaiuly  neic  light,  and  that  all  the 
honor  and  immunities  pertaining  to  a  first  discovery,  belong  to  the 
writers  of  this  document,  together  with  those  who  gave  it  tlieir 
sanction.  For  it  is  notorious,  that  the  Notes  on  the  Romans  have 
been  generally,  and  ahnost  universally  iniderstood  to  teach  New- 
Haven  Theology.  The  opinions  therein  expressed  have  been 
spoken  of,  and  advocated  as  the  peculiar  opinions  of  that  school. 
From  the  day  of  their  publication,  it  has  been  admitted,  on  all 
hands,  that  they  were  materially  at  variance  with  the  standards  of 
our  Church.  This  is  the  view  taken  of  them  by  the  Biblical  Re- 
pertory, which  is  believed  to  express  the  sentiments  of  the  Profes- 
sors at  Princeton.  The  Christian  Intelligencer,  a  highly  respect- 
able religious  paper,  conducted  by  members  of  the  Dutch  Relorm- 
ed  Church,  speaking  of  the  Commentary  of  Professor  Stewart,  and 
the  Notes  of  Mr.  Barnes  on  the  Romans,  says :  "Both  are  equally 
devoted  to  the  New  School  Theology,  in  its  extreme  of  the  New- 
Haven  School."  The  Watchman,  published  at  Hartford,  Connec- 
ticut, and  edited  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Harvey,  which  is  the  organ  of 
the  East  Windsor  School,  after  speaking  of  Dr.  Miller's  remarks, 
(in  reply  to  Dr.  bkinner's  assertion,  that  to  condemn  Mr.  Barnes' 
book  would  be  to  stigmatize  New  England  divinity,)  viz  ;  "  That 
if  we  pass  this  resolution  we  shall  certainly  rejoice  the  hearts  of 
hundreds  of  our  New  England  brethren,"  uses  the  following  lan- 
guage— "  The  remark  of  Dr.  Miller  is  doubtless  correct.  We 
deny  that  the  sentiments,  contained  in  the  book  of  Mr.  Barnes,  is 
New  England  divinity.  Dr.  Miller's  resolution  expressed  precisely 
the  views  of  many  in  New  England.  Mr.  Barnes  has  stigmatized 
his  own  book,  by  introducing  into  it  sentiments  subversive  of  the 
Gospel,  and  it  is  a  stigma,  from  which  no  apology  of  Dr.  Skinner, 
nor  vote  of  the  General  Assembly,  will  wash  it  clean."  The  fol- 
lowing is  the  language  of  the  Christian  Examiner,  (a  leading 
Unitarian  paper,)  for  March  1836  : — 

"  Ot  the  atone  nent,  our  autlior's  (Mr.  Barnes')  views  are  far  in  advance  of  tliosc  of 
the  chu  -ch  to  which  he  belo  ig?.  Though  he  maintai'is  that  Christ  was  in  some  sera? 
'  a  suhititute  in  the  place  of  si  m°rs,'  he  deni':s  a  strictly  and  fully  vie  irious  atonemmt, 
and  mikes  the  Saviour's  death  important  chi  >fly  as  an  illustration  of  the  inherent  and 
esaantial  connexion  between  sin  and  sufL-rin^." 


28 
Again,  page  70 — 

"  On  the  subject  of  man's  nature,  capacities,  and  duty,  our  author  is  sound  and  lucid, 
fhe  idea  of  hereditary  depravity  he  spurns  as  unworthy  even  a  passinj^  notice.  He 
asserts,  rereatedly,  that  men  sin  only  'in  their  o%on  persons, — sin  themselves, — as, 
indeed,  how  can  they  sin  in  any  other  way  ?'  The  imputation  of  Adam's  transgres- 
sion he  treats  as  a  scholastic  absurdity.  Of  the  figment  of  Adam's  federal  headship, 
and  the  condemnation  of  his  posterity  for  partnership  in  his  sin,  Mr.  Barnes  says, 
'  There  is  not  one  word  of  it  in  the  Bible.'  '  It  is  a  mere  philosophical  theory ;  an 
introduction  of  a  speculation  into  theology,  with  an  attempt  to  explain  what  the  Bible 
has  left  unexplained.'  *  *  * 

"  In  conclusion  we  would  say,  that,  while  our  orthodox  brethren  publish  and 
circulate,  and  receive  with  favour  such  books  as  these  'Notes,'  we  most  cordially 
extend  to  them  the  right  hand  of  fellowship,  even  though  they  refuse  to  return  it.  We 
regard  them  as  fellow  labourers  with  us  for  the  overthrow  of  time-hallowed  absurdities, 
for  the  cleansing  of  the  Christian  creed  from  'whatever  defileth  and  maketh  a  lie.' 
Calvinism  is  now  a  house  divided  against  itself.  It  embraces,  within  its  walls,  two, 
not  only  distinct,  but  opposite  sects  ;  the  one  that  of  the  friends,  the  other  that  of  the 
enemies  of  free  inquiry, — the  one  that  of  the  votaries  of  reason,  the  other  thait  of  the 
blindfold  recipients  of  a  traditional  faith.  The  house  is  tottering — is  on  the  point  of 
falling ;  and,  when  it  falls,  we  confidently  expect  to  receive  into  the  citadel  of  liberal 
Christianity,  and  shall  greet  with  a  most  hearty  welcome,  those,  beneath  whose  well- 
aimed  blows  the  wallsof  the  old  mansion  are  shaking,  and  its  foundations  crumbling." 

And  even  individuals  of  the  majority,  in  the  last  Assembly,  did 
not  pretend  that  his  views  were  in  strict  accordance  with  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith.  In  giving  their  opinions,  they  admitted,  that  in 
some  respects,  and  on  some  points,  he  was  diametrically  opposed  to 
those  who  receive  the  standards,  in  their  plain  and  obvious  meaning, 
— but  they  justified  his  departures — some  on  the  ground  that  he 
had  received  the  Confession  of  Faith,  only  for  substance,  as  a  sys- 
tem— (the  ground  by  the  way  taken  by  Mr.  Barnes  himself) — and 
others,  "because"  as  they  said  "they  much  preferred  his  method  of 
representing  these  truths,  and  of  explaining  the  language  of  our 
confession."  Such  was  the  language  of  individuals,  even  in  the 
niajority  of  the  last  Assembly  ;  but,  notwithstanding  this,  and  not- 
withstanding the  opinions  of  respectable  men,  in  almost  every  de- 
nomination in  the  land  to  the  contrary,  that  very  majority  "  by  the 
laws  of  exposition"  (new  light  laws  it  is  presumed,)  "  come  to 
the  conclusion,  that  the  book  does  not  teach  the  errors  charged." 

They  say  3dly  :— 

"  When  the  Assembly,  by  sustaining  the  appeal  of  Mr.  Barnes,  by  a  majority  of  38; 
and  by  a  majority  of  67,  removed  the  sentence  of  his  suspension,  and  restored  him  in 
good  standing  to  the  ministry,  it  is  not  competent  for  the  same  judicature,  by  the  con- 
demnation of  the  book,  to  inflict  on  Mr.  Barnes  indirectly,  but  really,  a  sentence  of 
condemnation,  as  direct  in  its  effects,  and  as  prostrating  to  his  character  and  useful- 
ness, as  if  it  had  been  done  directly,  by  refusing  to  sustain  his  appeal,  and  by  confirm- 
ing the  sentence  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  : — And  what  this  Assembly  has  de- 
clared^ that  it  cannot  in  equity  do  directly,  it  cannot,  in  equity  or  consistency,  attempt 
to  do  mdirectly," 

The  term  competent  here  must  refer  to  the  powers  of  the  Assem- 
bly, under  the  constitution.  Now  we  affirm,  there  is  nothing  in  the 
constitution  that  forbids  such  a  procedure.  If  there  is,  let  it  be  pro- 
duced ;  until  this  is  done  we  shall  hold  that  the  Assembly  were 
competent  to  pass  the  resolution  offered  by  Dr.  Miller.  And  we 
affirm  farther,  that  the  general  practice,  under  the  constitution,  has 
been  in  favour  of  the  course  contemplated  by  the  resolution  in 


29 

question.  Every  one  knows  that  nothing  is  more  common,  espe- 
cially in  difficult  and  corapHcated  cases,  than  for  the  Court  appealed 
to,  after  the  question  "sustain  or  not  sustaaj"  has  been  taken  to 
appoint  a  Committee  to  bring  in  a  minute  expressive  ot  ilieir  views 
on  the  whole  case — a  minute  that  will  deal  out  e\  en-handed  justice 
to  all  the  parties  concerned.  If  the  appellant  has  been  sustained, 
stating  the  precise  ground  on  which  he  has  been  sustained,  and  at 
the  same  time,  specifying  what  may  have  been  worthy  of  approba- 
tion in  the  proceedings  of  the  inferior  judicatory  ;  if  he  has  not  been 
sustained,  giving  the  reasons  of  this  fact,  and  also  noticing  what- 
ever may  be  favourable  in  his  cause.  And  the  wisdom  ol  this  is 
apparent.  Church  courts  often  arrive  at  just  results,  through  un- 
just means  ;  arrive  at  a  righteous  verdict  by  trampling  on  constitu- 
tional law  Suppose  an  appeal  taken  in  such  cases.  Are  the 
members  of  the  higher  judicatory  shut  up  to  the  necessity,  of  either 
letting  the  party  arraigned  escape  his  deserts,  or  of  sanctioning  by 
their  vote  the  violation  of  Church  order?  By  no  means.  The 
spirit  of  our  hook  at  least,  provides,  and  general  practice  is  in 
accordance  with  the  provisiojj — that  the  appellant,  in  the  case  sup- 
posed, if  the  Cotul  see  fit,  shall  have  the  benefit  of  the  unconsti- 
tutional proceedmgs  of  the  inferior  judicatory  ;  but,  at  the  same 
time,  the  offence  charged  upon  him  shall  be  condemned.  Now 
this  is  precisely  what  Dr.  Miller  had  in  view  in  offering  his  resolution. 
The  Assembly  had  sustained  Mr.  Barnes,  and  Dr.  Miller  wished 
them  now  to  condemn  his  doctrines.  Neither  in  view  of  the  con- 
stitution then,  nor  of  general  practice  under  it,  can  the  position  we 
are  examining  be  maintained.  It  is  utterly  fallacious ;  and  its 
fallacy  lies  in  assuming,  that  because  the  appellant  had  been  sus- 
tained, he  must  necessarily  have  been  sustained  on  all  the  grounds 
of  his  appeal. 

The  assumption  we  have  just  been  exposing,  runs  through  both 
the  4th  and  5th  paragraphs  of  the  paper  before  us,  and  imparts  to 
them  all  their  force,  and  we  need  not  therefore  dwell  upon  them. 

But  it  is  said  6thly  : — 

"  So  far  is  the  Assembly,  from  countenancing  the  errors  alleged  in  the  cbargca  of 
Dr.  Junkin,  that  they  do  cordially  and  ex  animo  adopt  the  Confession  of  our  Church, 
on  the  points  of  doctrine  in  question,  according  to  the  obvious,  and  most  prevalent  in- 
terpretation ;  and  do  regard  it  as  a  whole,  as  the  best  epitome  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
Bible  ever  formed.  And  this  Assembly  disavows  any  desire,  and  would  deprecate 
any  attempt,  to  change  the  phraseology  of  our  standards,  and  would  disapprove  of  any 
language  of  light  estimation  applied  to  them  ;  believing  that  no  denomination  can 
prosper  whose  members  permit  themselves  to  speak  slightly  of  its  formularies  of  doc- 
trine ;  and  are  ready  to  unite  with  their  brethren,  in  contending  earnestly  for  the  faith 
of  our  standards." 

This  is  a  most  amazing  declaration  !  Is  it  so,  indeed,  that  (he 
errors  charged  by  Dr.  Junkin,  are  not  to  be  tolerated  in  the  Presby- 
terian Church,  even  by  those  who  have  received  and  adopted  our 
standards  "  only  as  a  system,"  and  "  for  substance  of  doctrine  1" 
Is  it  so,  "  that  they  do  cordially,  and  ex  animo,  adopt  the  confession 
of  our  Church  on  the  points  of  doctnne  in  question,  according  to 


30 

the  obvious  and  most  prevalent  interpretation  1"  What  then  is  the 
cause  of  diti'erence  between  ns  1  About  what  have  we  been  so 
long  contending'?  Why  talk  of  conif)  omise — of  toleration — of 
latitude  of  construction  1  Wbat  necessity  is  there  for  having  the 
old  adopling  act  of  1729  revived  ?  Wliy  do  those  who  differ  from 
us  call  themselves  the  J^ew  school  party  1  Would  that  their  preach- 
ing, and  that  their  speeches,  in  defending  Mr.  Bajiies,  coiresponded 
with  this  declaration  !  We  must  be  excused,  however,  if,  under 
the  circiunstances  of  the  case,  with  our  personal  knowledge  on 
this  subject,  we  ask  for  something  more  than  mere  assertion,  as 
proof  of  its  truth.  We  must  be  excused  if  we  express  our  fears 
that  it  is  only  a  miserable  attempt  to  deceive  the  Church  and  the 
world,  as  to  the  real  sentiments  of  those,  who,  though  in  our 
Church,  have  no  sympathies  with  us  as  Presbyterians. 
But  we  are  told  7thly  : — 

"  The  correctness  of  the  preceding  positions,  is  confirmed,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
Assenil)ly,  by  a  careful  analysis  of  the  renl  meaning  of  Mr.  Barnes  under  each  charge, 
as  ascertained  by  the  language  of  his  book  ;  and  the  revisions,  disclaimers,  explana- 
tions, and  declarations  which  he  has  made." 

To  follow  the  writers  of  the  paper  before  us,  in  tliat  "careful 
analysis  of  the  real  meaning  of  Mr.  Barnes,  under  each  charge" 
by  which  they  have  come  to  the  conclusion  stated,  i*  altogether 
unnecessary.  It  would  be  to  do  little  else  than  repeat  what  Dr. 
Junkin  has  already  said  with  great  ability.  Presuming,  however, 
that  this  address  may  fall  into  the  hands  of  some  who  have  not 
had  access  to  his  argument,  we  shall  give  the  assertions  of  the 
writers  of  this  paper,  with  respect  to  two  or  three  of  the  charges, 
and  also  the  language  of  Mr.  Barnes,  and  ask  every  candid,  honest 
man  to  compare  them.     They  say: — 

"  In  respect  to  the  first  c'large,  that  Mr.  Barnes  teaches,  that  all  sin  is  voluntary,  the 
context,  and  his  own  decla -iitions,  show  that  he  ref.  rs  to  all  actual  sin  merely,  in  which 
he  afnrms  the  sinner  ads  under  no  compulsion." 

Now  ask  Mr.  Barnes  himself  what  he  teaches.  He  says,  p.  249 
of  his  Notes  on  the  Romans, 

"  In  all  this,  and  in  all  other  siv,  man  is  voluntary." 

Again,  he  says,  p.  123  : — 

"  There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  they  [men]  are  condemned  to  eternal  death,  or 
held  to  be  guilty  of  !iis  sin  [meaning  Adam's  sin]  without  participation,  ot  their  own, 
or  without  personal  sin,  any  more  tlian  that  they  are  approved  by  the  work  of  Christ, 
or  held  to  be  personally  deserving,  without  embracing  his  offer,  and  receiving  him  as 
a  Saviour." 

Elsewhere  he  says, 

"  Men  sin  in  their  own  person,  sin  in  themselves,  as  indeed,  how  can  they  sin  any  other 
way." 

They  say  : — 

"In  respect  to  the  fifth  charge,  Mr.  Barnes  no  where  denies,  much  less  'sneers'  at 
the  idea  tiiat  Adam  was  the  Covenant  and  Federal  Head  of  his  posterity  : — On  the 
contrary,  though  he  employs  not  these  tern.s,  he  docs,  in  other  language,  teach  the 
same  truths  wliich  are  taught  by  this  piiiasco'o  y." 

But  what  is  Mr.  Barnes'  langunge  1     He  says,  p.  128,  "various 
'empts  have  been  made  to  explain  this — the  most  common  has 


31 

been,  that  Adam  was  tlie  representative  of  the  race,  that  he  was  a 
covenant  head,  an  I  that  his  sin  was  imputed  to  his  posterity,  and 
that  tliey  were  hold  hab!e  to  panishuient  for  it  as  if  they  had  com- 
mitted it  themselves.  B.U  to  this  there  are  great  and  insuperable 
ohjections.  Ist,  There  is  not  one  word  of  it  in  the  Bible.  Neither 
the  terms  representative,  covemnt,  or  impute,  are  e^erapphed  to  the 
transaction  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures.  2d  It  is  a  mere  philosoph.cal 
theory."  On  page  130,  121  ;  "a  comparison  is  also  instituted  be- 
tween Adam  and  Christ,  in  1  Cor.  xv.  22 — 25.  The  reason  is, 
not  that  Adam  was  the  representative  or  federal  head  of  the  human 
race,  about  which  the  apostle  says  nothing,  and  which  is  not  even 
implied,  but  that  he  was  the  first  of  the  race.  The  words  repre- 
sentative and  federal  head  are  never  applied  to  Adam  in  the  Bible. 
The  reason  is,  that  the  word  representative  implies  an  idea,  which 
could  not  have  existed  in  the  case,  the  consent  of  those  who  are  repre- 
sen?t(/." 

On  p.  117,  in  allusion  to  the  language  used  in  our  Catechism, 
viz  :  "  That  the  covenant  being  made  with  Adam,  not  only  for 
himself,  but  also  for  his  posterity,  all  mankind  descending  from 
him  by  ordinary  generation  sinned  in  him  and  fell  with  him  in  his 
first  transgression  ;"  he  asks,  in  a  sneering  maimer,  "what  idea  is 
conveyed  to  men  of  common  understanding,  by  the  expression,  they 
sinned  in  him?'''  But  enough  of  this,  let  any  honest  unsophisticated 
m;n;l  ponder  such  language  and  then  form  its  opinion  of  the  man 
or  men,  who  could  say,  "Mr.  Barnes  no  where  denies,  much  less 
'sneers  at'  the  idea  that  Adam  was  the  covenant  and  federal  head 
of  his  posterity."  We  repeat  what  we  have  already  said,  this  paper 
presents  the  most  painful  and  most  humiliating  part  of  the  whole 
proceedings  in  this  case,  and  most  sincerely  do  we  mourn,  that 
Christian  ministers  should  ever  have  written  it. 

It  will  be  perceived,  that  hitherto  we  have  said  little  of  the 
parties  concerned  in  tiiis  case,  and  we  intend  to  say  little.  We 
have,  however,  our  opinions,  and  we  have  no  wish  to  conceal 
them.  As  it  respects  the  party  arraigned,  it  does  appear  to  us,  that 
no  man  can  review  the  course  he  has  pursued,  without  discovering 
the  aTjsence  of  that  frankness  and  candour,  that  should  always 
characterize  the  minister  of  the  Gospel.  We  have  his  own  autho- 
rity for  saying,  that  the  sentiments  lie  holds  now,  he  held  before 
he  was  licensed  ;  and  yet,  though  he  knows  and  admits,  that  some 
of  his  sentiments  are  at  variance  with  our  standards,  we  find  him 
making  no  objections  to  answering  the  solemn  questions  required 
of  him  on  entering  the  ministry  ;  nor  is  he  to  this  hour,  so  far  as 
we  know,  taking  any  steps  to  rid  himself  of  obligations  which  he 
ought  never  to  have  assumed.  The  same  trait  of  character  is 
strikingly  exhibited,  when  he  first  appears  before  the  Presbytery  of 
Philadelphia.  It  would  have  been  an  easy  matter  for  him  to  have 
satisfied  the  minds  of  the  Fathers  and  Brethren  of  that  Presbytery  ; 
and  we  cannot  but  believe,  that  the  simplicity  which  the  Gospel 


32 

teaches,  called  upon  him  to  do  so.  If  we  mistake  not,  his  course 
has  also  presented  an  instance  of  self  confidence  rarely  witnessed. 
The  man  who,  under  the  circumstances  of  his  case,  in  view  of  all 
that  had  been  done  by  Presbyteries,  Synods,  and  Assemblies,  in 
relation  to  his  seniiments,  can  affirm,  as  he  did  affirm,  in  substance, 
if  not  in  express  terms,  on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly,  that  his 
views  had  not  changed  in  regard  to  a  single  principle ;  that  the 
alterations  made  in  his  books  were  confined  entirely  to  phraseology; 
and  that  the  sentiments  he  now  holds  he  will  preach  until  he  dies — 
possesses,  assuredly,  no  ordinary  measure  of  self-reliance  and  self- 
complacency. 

These  things  we  are  induced  to  say,  because  no  ordinary  efforts 
have  been  made  to  produce  the  impression,  that  Mr.  Barnes  is 
eminently  distinguished  by  the  various  virtues  that  adorn  the 
ministerial  character,  and  thus  a  sympathy  has  been  excited  in  his 
favour  as  a  most  persecuted  individual,  which  has,  as  we  think, 
turned  aside  the  public  mind  from  the  real  point  at  issue. 

As  it  respects  the  prosecutor,  great  pains  have  been  taken  to  hold 
him  up  to  public  odium  and  reproach ;  but  we  know  him  person- 
ally, and  believe  him  to  be  an  humble,  modest,  faithful,  and  de- 
voted servant  of  Christ,  in  whom  there  is  no  guile  ;  and  we  feel 
bound  to  say,  respecting  the  part  he  has  taken  in  this  controversy, 
that,  in  our  opinion,  he  has  done  the  Church  an  essential  service, 
and  we  are  persuaded  that  the  time  will  come,  when  she  will  feel 
her  obligations  to  him,  as  to  one  of  her  most  dutiful  sons  and  ablest 
defenders.  He  has  brought  to  light  the  system  of  error,  which  is 
fast  taking  the  place  of  the  system  of  truth  taught  in  our  stand- 
ards, given  it  form,  exposed  the  sophistry  of  the  arguments  upon 
which  it  rests,  and  pointed  out  its  ruinous  tendency  in  a  masterly 
manner ;  and  he  has  constructed  an  argument  in  support  of  the 
doctrines  taught  in  our  standards,  founded  on  the  word  of  God, 
which  we  believe  to  be  unanswerable.  And  nil  this,  he  has,  by  the 
grace  of  God,  been  enabled  to  do.  Mr.  Barnes  himself  being 
judge,  in  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel. 

And  with  regard  to  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  loud  as  has  been 
the  popular  clamour  against  them,  we  believe,  when  all  the  circum- 
stances, under  which  they  acted,  are  duly  considered,  it  will  be 
found,  that  this  clamour  is  without  any  sufficient  ground.  And 
though  some  of  us,  had  we  been  members  of  that  body,  would 
probably  have  been  in  favour  of  a  different  course,  and  one  of  us, 
who  was  present,  as  it  is  well  known,  strenuously  advocated  a  dif- 
ferent course,  still,  we  are  persuaded,  not  merely  that  they  were 
actuated  by  "  a  conscientious  zeal  for  the  purity  of  the  church,"  but 
looking  at  the  emixarrassments  of  the  position  in  which  they  were 
placed,  and  the  provocation  that  was  given  them  by  the  doings  of 
the  Assembly's  Second  Presbytery,  it  is  to  us  matter  of  surprise 
that  so  little  of  human  weakness  and  human  passion  is  apparent  in 
heir  proceedings. 


33 

We  now  proceed  to  notice  very  briefly  the  second  great  subject 
that  occupied  the  attention  of  the  last  assembly,  viz : — The  Foreign 
Missionary  question,  its  discussion  by  that  Body,  and  their  final 
decision  upon  it.  It  has  long  been  the  desire  of  niany  that  we 
should  engage  in  the  work  of  sending  the  Gospel  to  the  Heathen, 
in  our  distinctive  organized  character  as  a  church.  They  have  be- 
hevedit  to  be  a  duty  resulting  from  the  command  of  the  Saviour, 
"Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature." 
They  have  believed  that  the  form  of  our  government  is  peculiarly 
adapted  to  the  acconiplishment  of  this  work. — That  in  no  other 
way  could  we  so  efTectually  enlist  the  feelings  and  call  forth  the 
resources  of  our  people  in  support  of  Foreign  Missions. — That  in  no 
other  way  could  we  so  greatly  promote  the  best  interests  of  our 
churches  at  home ;  the  experience  of  other  churches  having  clearly 
evinced  that  there  is  a  re-action  in  this  matter — that  just  about  in 
proportion  as  they  have  engaged  in  sending  the  Gospel  to  others, 
they  have  themselves  grown  and  flourished  ;  and  they  have  be- 
lieved that  consistency  with  our  profession  and  fidelity  to  the  truth, 
require  us  to  embark  in  this  work. — That  if  Presbyterianism  is 
worth  preserving  among  ourselves,  it  is  Avoith  imparting  to  others ; 
and  that,  therefore,  such  steps  should  be  taken  and  arrangements 
made,  as  would  give  us  the  opportunity  of  examining  our  missiona- 
ries, and  of  ascertaining  their  sentiments  respecting  the  doctrines 
and  government  of  our  church,  before  they  are  sent  abroad. 
Impressed  with  the  belief  of  these  truths,  and  under  a  solemn  con- 
viction of  duty,  the  Assembly  of  1835,  passed  the  following  reso- 
lution:— 

"  Resolved,  That  a  committee  be  appointed  to  confer  with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburg, 
on  the  subject  of  a  transfer  ol"  the  supervision  of  the  Western  Foreign  jMissionary  Soci- 
ety, now  under  the  direction  of  that  Synod  ;  to  ascertain  the  terms  on  which  such 
transfer  can  be  made ;  to  devise  and  di  jest  a  plan  of  conduiting  foreign  missions 
under  the  direction  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  church  ;  and  report 
the  whole  to  the  next  General  Assembly." 

And  at  a  subsequent  period  of  their  sessions,  passed  a  second  re- 
solution in  the  terms  following: — 

"  Resolved,  That  the  committee  appointed  to  confer  with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburg,  on 
the  subject  of  a  transfer  of  the  supervision  of  the  Western  Forei4n  Missionary  Society 
to  the  General  Assembly,  be  authorized,  if  they  shall  approve  of  the  said  transfer,  to 
ratify  and  confirm  the  same  with  the  said  Synod,  and  report  the  same  to  the  next 
General  Assembly." 

This  connmittee  attended  to  the  duty  assigned  them  and  made 
the  report  which  follov/s  to  the  last  General  Assembly  : — 

"  The  committee  appointed  by  the  last  Assembly  on  the  transfer  of  the  Western 
Foreign  Missionary  Society  to  the  General  Assembly,  made  a  report,  wliich  waa 
read  and  accepted,  and  is  as  follows,  viz  : — 

"  The  committee  appointed  under  the  following  resolution  of  the  last  Gene-al  As- 
sembly, viz.  ^Resolved,  That  the  committee  appointed  to  confer  with  the  L^ynod  of 
Pittsburg,  on  the  subject  of  a  transfer  of  the  supervision  of  the  Westi  rn  Foreign  Aiis- 
eionary  Society  to  the  General  Assembly,  be  authorized,  if  they  shall  approve  of  the 
said  transfer,  to  ratify  and  confirm  the  same  with  the  said  Synod,  and  re  port  the  same 
to  the  next  General  Assembly,'  beg  leave  to  report, — That  they  submitted  the  following 

5 


34 

terms  of  agreement  to  the  Synod  of  Pittsburg,  at  its  sessions  last  fall,  and  that  it  was 
duly  ratified  by  that  body,  as  will  fully  appear  by  its  minutes. 

"  Terms  of  agreement  between  the  committee  of  the  General  Assembly  and  the 
Synod  of  Pittsburg,  in  reference  Co  the  transfer  of  the  Western  Foreign  Missionary 
Society. 

"  ].  The  General  Assembly  will  assume  the  snperversion  and  control  of  the  Wes- 
tern Foreign  Missionary  Society,  from  and  after  the  next  annual  meeting  of  said 
Assembly,  and  will  thereafter  superintend  and  conduct,  by  its  own  proper  authority, 
the  work  of  foreign  missions  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  by  a  board  especially  ap- 
pointed for  that  purpose,  and  directly  amenable  to  said  Assembly. — And  the  Synodof 
Pittsburg  does  hereby  transfer  to  that  body  all  its  supervision  and  control  over  the 
missions  and  operations  of  the  Western  Foreign  Society,  from  and  after  the  adoption 
of  this  minute;  and  authorizes  and  directs  said  Society  to  perform  every  act  necessary 
to  complete  said  transfer,  when  the  Assembly  shall  have  appointed  its  board,  it  being 
expressly  understood  that  the  said  Assembly  will  never  hereafter  alienate  or  transfer  to 
any  other  judicatory  or  board  whatever,  the  direct  supervision  and  management  of  the 
said  missions,  or  those  which  may  hereafter  be  established  by  the  Board  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly. 

"  2.  The  General  Assembly  shall,  at  its  next  meeting,  choose  forty  ministers  and 
forty  laymen,  and  annually  thereafter  ten  ministers  and  ten  laymen,  as  members  of 
the  board  of  »oreign»  missions,  whose  term  of  office  shall  be  four  years  ;  and  these 
forty  ministers  and  forty  laymen,  so  appointed,  sliall  constitute  a  board,  to  be  styled, 
'The  Board  of  Foreign  Missions  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States;' 
to  which,  for  the  time  being,  shall  be  cntn-sted,  with  such  directions  and  instructions 
as  may  from  time  to  time  be  given,  the  superintendence  of  the  foreign  missionary  ope- 
rations of  the  Presbyterian  church  ;  who  sliali  make  annually  to  the  General  Assem- 
bly a  report  of  their  proceedings  ;  and  submit  for  its  approval  such  plans  and  measures 
as  may  be  deemed  useful  and  necessary.  Until  the  transfer  shall  have  been  com- 
pleted, the  business  shall  be  conducted  by  the  Western  Foreign  Missionary  Society. 

"  ;i  The  board  of  directors  shall  hold  a  meeting  annually,  at  some  convenient 
time  during  the  sessions  of  the  General  Assembly,  at  which  it  shall  appoint  a  presi- 
dent, vice-president,  a  corresponding  secretary,  a  recording  secretary,  a  treasurer,  gen- 
eral agents,  and  an  executive  committee,  to  serve  for  the  ensuing  year.  It  shall  be- 
long to  the  board  to  receive  and  decide  upoii  all  the  doings  of  the  executive  committee, 
to  receive  and  dispose  of  their  annual  report,  and  present  a  statement  of  their  proceed- 
ings to  the  General  Assembly.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  board  of  directors  to  meet 
for  the  transaction  of  business  as  often  as  may  l)c  expedient,  due  notice  of  every 
special  meeting  being  given  to  every  member  of  the  board.  It  is  recommended  to  the 
board  to  hold,  in  diflerent  parts  of  the  church,  at  least  one  public  meeting  annually,  to 
promote  and  diffuse  a  livelier  interest  in  the  foreign  missionary  cause. 

"  4.  To  the  executive  committee,  consisting  of  not  more  than  seven  members,  be- 
sides the  correspending  secretary  and  treasurer,  shall  belong  the  duty  of  appointing 
all  missionaries  and  missionary  agents,  except  those  otherwise  provided  for ;  of  desig- 
nating their  fields  of  labour,  receiving  the  reports  of  the  corresponding  secretary,  and 
giving  him  needful  directions  in  reference  to  all  matters  of  business  and  correspon- 
dence entrusted  to  him  ;  to  authorize  all  appropriations  and  expenditures  of  money  ; 
and  to  take  the  particular  direction  and  management  of  the  foreign  missionary  work, 
subject  to  the  revision  of  the  board  of  directors.  The  executive  committee  shall  meet 
at  least  once  a  month,  and  oftener  if  necessary;  of  whom  three  members,  meeting  at 
the  time  and  place  of  adjournment  or  special  call,  shall  constitute  a  quorum.  The 
committee  shall  have  power  to  fill  their  own  vacancies,  if  any  occur  during  a  recess  of 
the  board. 

*'  5.  All  property,  houses,  lands,  tenements,  and  permanent  funds,  belonging  to 
the  board  of  foreign  missions  to  be  constituted  by  this  agreement,  shall  be  taken  in 
the  name  of  the  Trustees  of  the  General  Assembly,  and  held  in  trust  by  them  for  the 
use  and  benefit  of  the  board  of  foreign  missions  for  the  time  being. 

*'  6.  The  seat  of  the  operations  of  the  board  shall  be  designated  by  the  General 
Assembly." 

The  Assembly,  instead  of  at  once  adopting  this  report  and  pro- 
ceeding- to  carry  its  stipulations  into  etfect,  as  we  believe  they 
should  have  done,  after  much  discussion,  referred  it  to  a  committee 
who  were  authorized  to  review  the  whole  case  and  present  it  for 


35 

the  consideration  of  the  Assembly.     The  report  of  this  committee 
is  as  follows: — 

"  The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  report  of  the  committee  appointed  by  the 
last  Assembly  on  the  subject  of  a  transfer  of  the  supervision  of  the  Western  Foreign 
Missionary  Society  to  the  General  Assembly,  and  also  th"  ovirture  from  the  Synod  of 
Philadelphia,  on  the  subject  of  foreign  missions,  report — That  the  attention  of  the  last 
Assembly  was  called  to  the  subject  of  foreign  missions  by  the  following  overture,  viz. 
on  page  31  of  printed  minutes  :  'That  it  is  the  solemn  conviction  of  this  General  As- 
sembly, that  the  Presbyterian  Church  owes  it,  as  a  sacred  duty  to  her  glorified  Head, 
to  yield  a  far  more  exemplary  obedience,  and  that  in  her  distinctive  character  as  a 
church,  to  the  command  which  he  gave  at  his  ascension  into  Heaven — '  Go  ye  into 
all  the  world  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature.'  It  is  believed  to  be  among 
the  causes  of  the  frowns  of  the  great  Head  of  the  Church,  which  are  now  resting  on 
our  beloved  Zion,  in  the  declension  of  vital  piety,  and  the  disorders  and  divisions  that 
distract  us,  that  we  have  done  so  little — comparatively  nothing — in  our  distinctive 
character  as  a  Church  of  Christ,  to  send  the  Gospel  to  the  Heathen,  to  the  Jews,  and 
the  Mahomedans.  It  is  regarded  as  of  vital  importance  to  the  welfare  of  our  church, 
that  foreign  as  well  as  domestic  missions  sliould  be  more  zealously  prosecuted,  and 
more  liberally  patronized  ;  and  that  as  a  noucleus  of  foreign  missionary  effort  and 
operation,  the  Western  Foreign  Missionary  Society  should  receive  the  countenance, 
as  it  appears  to  us  to  merit  the  confidence,  of  those  who  cherish  an  attachment  to  the 
doctrines  and  order  of  the  church  to  which  we  belong.' 

"  The  Assembly  feeling  the  force  of  the  suggestions  contained  in  this  overture,  and 
believing  it  to  be  their  most  important  and  appropriate  work,  to  spread  the  Gospel 
throughout  the  world,  adopted  the  overture  in  the  form  of  a  resolution,  together  with 
the  following,  viz. 

"  '  Resolved,  That  a  committee  be  appointed  to  confer  with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburg 
on  the  subject  of  a  transfer  of  the  supervision  of  the  Western  Foreign  Missionary  Soci- 
ety, now  under  the  direction  of  that  Synod  ;  to  ascertain  the  terms  on  which  such 
transfer  can  be  made;  to  devise  and  digest  a  plan  of  conducting  foreign  missions 
under  the  direction  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  church  ;  and  report 
the  whole  to  the  next  General  Assembly.' 

"  Thus  it  appears,  that  the  proposition  to  confer  with  the  Synod,  and  to  assume  the 
supervision  and  control  of  the  Western  Foreign  Missionary  Society,  originated  in  the 
Assembly. 

'•  At  that  time  the  Western  Foreign  Missionary  Society  was  in  a  prosperous  condi- 
tion, enjoying  the  confidence  and  receiving  the  patronage  of  a  considerable  number  of 
our  churches,  having  in  their  employ  about  twenty  missionaries,  and  their  funds  were 
unembarrassed.  The  committee  having  conferred  with  some  of  the  members  of  that 
society,  and  finding  that  the  proposition  was  favourably  regarded  by  them,  indulging 
the  hope  that  an  arrangement  might  be  definitely  made  with  the  Synod,  at  their  next 
stated  meeting,  by  which  the  Assembly  would  be  prepared  to  enter  on  the  work  at 
their  present  sessions,  brought  the  subject  again  before  the  Assembly,  when  it  was, 
after  mature  deliberation, 

" '  Resolved,  That  the  committee  appointed  to  confer  with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburg, 
on  the  subject  of  a  transfer  of  the  supervision  of  the  Western  Foreign  Missionary  So- 
ciety to  the  General  Assembly,  be  authorized,  if  they  shall  approve  of  the  said  transfer, 
to  ratify  and  confirm  the  same  with  the  said  Synod,  and  report  the  same  to  the  next 
General  Assembly.' — p.  33. 

"  The  committee  thus  appointed,  and  clothed  with  full  powers  to  ratify  and  confirm 
a  transfer,  submitted  the  terms  on  which  they  were  willing  to  accept  it,  to  the  Synod  of 
Pittsburgh,  at  their  sessions  last  Fall. 

"  The  members  of  the  committee  not  being  present  at  the  meeting  of  the  Synod,  and 
there  being  no  time  for  further  correspondence,  the  Synod,  (although  they  would  have 
preferred  some  alterations  of  the  terms,)  were  precluded  from  proposing  any,  on  the 
ground  that  such  alteration  would  vitiate  the  whole  proceedings,  and  therefore  acceded 
to  the  terms  of  the  transfer  which  were  proposed  by  the  committee  of  the  Assembly,  and 
solemnly  ratified  the  contract  on  their  part.  Feeling  themselves  bound  by  the  same, 
and  trusting  to  the  good  faith  of  this  body,  they  have  acted  accordingly,  and  have 
made  no  provision  for  their  missionaries  now  in  the  field,  for  a  longer  time  than  the 
meeting  of  this  Assembly,  having  informed  them  of  the  transfer  which  has  taken  place, 
and  of  the  new  relation  they  would  sustain  to  this  body  after  their  present  sessions. 

"  It  appears  then  to  your  committee,  tliat  the  Assembly  have  catered  into  a  solemn 


36 

compact  with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburg,  and  that  there  remains  but  one  righteous  course 
to  pursue,  which  is  to  adopt  the  report  of  the  committee  appointed  last  year,  and  to 
appoint  a  Foreign  Missionary  Board.  To  pause  now,  or  to  annul  the  doings  of  the 
last  Assembly  in  this  matter,  would  be  obviously  a  violation  of  contract,  a  breach  of 
trust,  and  a  departure  from  that  good  faith  which  should  be  sacredly  kept  between 
man  and  man,  and  especially  between  Christian  societies — conduct  which  would  be 
utterly  unworthy  of  this  venerable  body,  and  highly  injurious  to  the  Western  Foreign 
Missionary  Society. 

"  The  committee  beg  leave  further  respectfully  to  remind  the  Assembly,  that  a  large 
proportion  of  our  churches  (being  Presbyterians  from  conviction  and  preference,)  feel 
il  to  be  consistent  not  only,  but  their  solemn  duty  in  the  sight  of  God,  to  impart  to 
others  the  same  good,  and  in  the  same  form  of  it  which  they  enjoy  themselves,  and  to 
be  represented  in  heatiien  lands  by  missionaries  of  their  own  denomination.  They 
greatly  prefer  such  an  organization  as  this  contemplated,  and  which  shall  be  under 
the  care  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  and  cannot  be  enlisted  so  well  in  the  great  and 
glorious  work  of  sending  the  Gospel  to  the  Heathen  under  any  other.  Already,  with 
the  blessing  of  the  great  Head  of  the  church  on  the  efforts  of  the  Western  Foreign 
Missionary  Society,  in  this  form  of  operation,  has  a  missionary  spirit  been  awakened 
among  them  to  considerable  extent,  and  an  interest  in  the  cause  of  missions  been  cre- 
ated never  before  felt  by  them.  They  have  furnished  men  for  the  work,  and  are  con- 
tributing cheerfully  to  their  support  in  thp  Ibreign  field. 

"  As  one  great  end  to  be  accomplished  by  all  who  love  the  Redeemer,  is  to  awaken 
and  cherish  a  missionary  spirit,  and  to  enlist  all  the  churches  in  the  work  of  evange- 
lizing the  world  ;  as  every  leading  Christian  denomination  in  the  world,  has  its  own 
foreign  missionary  board,  and  has  found  such  distinct  organization  the  most  effectual 
method  of  interesting  the  churches  under  their  care,  in  this  great  subject ;  as  such  an 
organization  cannot  interfere  with  the  rights  or  operations  of  any  other  similar  organi- 
zation, for  the  field  is  the  world,  and  is  iciile  enough  for  all  to  cultivate  ;  as  it  is  neither 
desired  nor  intended  to  dictate  to  any  in  this  matter,  but  simply  to  give  an  opportunity 
of  sending  tlic  Gospel  to  the  Heathen,  by  their  own  missionaries,  to  those  who  prefer 
this  mode  of  doing  so,  giving  them  that  liberty  which  they  cheerfully  accord  to  others — 
your  committee  cannot  suppose  for  a  moment  that  this  General  Assembly  will  in  this 
sia^e  of  the  proceedings  refuse  to  consummate  this  arrangement  with  the  Synod  of 
Pittsburg,  and  thus  prevent  so  many  churches  under  their  care  from  supporting  their 
missionaries  in  their  own  way.  From  this  view  of  the  case,  they  recommend  to  the 
Assembly  the  adoption  of  the  following  resolutions,  viz. — 

"  1.  Resohsd,  That  the  report  of  the  Committee  appomted  by  the  last  Assembly,  to 
confer  with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburg  on  the  subject  of  a  transfer  of  the  Western  Foreign 
Missionary  Society  to  the  General  Assembly,  be  adopted,  and  that  said  transfer  be 
accepted  on  the  terms  of  agreement  therein  contained. 

'•  2.  Resolved,  That  the  Assembly  will  proceed  to  appoint  a  Foreign  Missionary 
Board,  the  seat  of  whose  operations  shall  be  in  the  city  of  New  York. 

Dr.  Skinner  (a  member  of  the  above  committee)  made  the  fol- 
lowing coimter  report : — 

"  Whereas,  the  American  Board  of  Commissioners  for  Foreign  Missions,  has  been 
coimected  with  the  Presbyterian  church  from  the  year  of  its  incorporation,  by  the  very 
elements  of  its  exist^^nce  ;  and  whereas  at  the  present  time  the  majority  of  the  whole 
of  that  board  are  Presbyterians  ;  and  whereas,  as  it  is  undesirable,  in  conducting  the 
work  of  Foreign  Missions,  that  there  should  be  any  collision  at  home  or  abroad  ;  there- 
fore, 

"  Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  that  the  Assembly  should  organize  a  separate 
Foreign  Missionary  Institution." 

The  discussion  of  this  subject  in  the  Assembly  took  place,  mainly 
on  a  motion  made  to  postpone  the  adoption  of  the  committee's 
report,  with  a  view  to  take  up  the  report  of  Dr.  Skinner.  The 
grand  question,  however  was,  "Shall  we  carry  into  effect  the 
solemn  contract  with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburg-,  duly  ratified  and 
confirmed  under  the  authority  of  the  last  Assembly  ;"  or  in  other 
words,  shall  we,  as  a  church,  engage  in  the  work  of  Foreign  Mis- 
sions 1 


37 

This  was  opposed,  on  the  ground  that  the  Assembly  had  no 
right  to  engage  in  this  work — that  it  would  be  inexpedient,  even  if 
they  had  the  right,  as  the  management  of  funds  would  secularize 
the  church — that  it  would  be  sectarian,  and  strong  apprehensions 
were  expressed,  that  we  should  next  have  a  Presbyterian  Tract 
Society,  a  Presbyterian  Sunday  School  Society,  &c.;  thus  clearly 
showing,  as  we  have  already  said,  that  these  men  have  no  sympa- 
thies with  us,  as  Presbyterians,  that  they  are  willing  to  retain; the 
name  so  long  as  it  serves  their  purposes,  but  that  they  have  no 
love  to  the  thing.  And  finally,  it  was  opposed  on  the  ground,'that 
it  would  be  a  violation  of  a  supposed  pledge  given  by  a  former 
Assembly  to  the  American  Board  of  Commissioners  for  Foreign 
Missions  ;  though  strange  as  it  may  seem,  it  was  strenuously  con- 
tended by  this  same  party,  that  one  Assembly  cannot  bind  another, 
and  that,  therefore,  the  Assembly  of  1835,  in  their  contract  through 
their  committee  with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburg,  had  transcended 
their  powers,  and  of  course  that  contract  was  null  and  void. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  friends  of  this  entei  prise  maintained 
that  we  had  a  right  to  engage  in  it — that  this  right  was  clearly 
implied  in  the  great  conjmission  of  the  Master,  to  "preach  the 
Gospel  for  every  creature,"  and  in  other  parts  of  Scripture  ;  and 
that  the  express  language  of  our  book  was:  "The  General  As- 
sembly may,  of  their  own  knowledge,  send  missions  to  any  part  to 
plant  churches,"  &c.  They  maintained  that  if  the  management 
of  funds  by  the  church  in  her  ecclesiastical  capacity  tended  to 
secularize  her  members,  the  same  cause  must  produce  the  same 
effect  upon  the  members  of  voluntary  associations;  and  that  this 
argument,  therefore,  proving  too  much,  was  good  for  nothing. 
They  contended  that  for  us  to  embark  in  this  work,  as  a  churchy 
was  not  secta7'ian  but  simply  denominational,  and  that  many  of  the 
denominations  around  us,  in  their  separate  organization,  had  al- 
ready embarked  in  it  with  the  happiest  results.  They  shewed,  by 
documentary  evidence,  that  no  pledge  had  ever  been  given  by  us 
on  this  subject  to  the  American  Board  of  Commissioners  for  Foreign 
Missions;  and  they  satisfactorily  demonstrated,  as  we  think,  that 
the  acts  of  one  Assembly  are  at  least  morally,  if  not  legally,  bind- 
ing on  succeeding  ones ;  and  that  therefore,  the  agreement  entered 
into  by  the  last  Assembly,  through  their  committee,  with  the  Sy- 
nod of  Pittsburg,  we  were  bound  to  fulfil.  They  urged  still 
further,  that  no  hostility  was  felt  towards  the  American  Board  of 
Commissioners — that  no  interference  with  their  operations  was 
intended — that  there  was  no  wish  to  restrict  those  who  preferred 
to  act  for  and  with  that  institution — that  all  that  was  designed 
was  the  liberty  of  doing,  in  our  own  way,  what  we  were  perfectly 
willing  to  allow  others  to  do  in  their  way.  They  stated  their 
strong  and  insuperable  objections  to  voluntary  associations — that 
they  were  irresponsible  bodies — that  some  of  them  were  in  fact 
close    corporations,  perpetuating    themselves — that  by  the  very 


38 

terms  of  their  association  they  must  send  out  men  of  every  shade 
of  rehgious  sentiment,  provided  they  are  in  good  or  regular  stand- 
ing in  any  ecclesiastical  body — that  having  the  control  of  a  vast 
amount  of  funds,  they  were  enabled  to  exercise  an  immense  pat- 
ronage which  might  be  exercised  for  evil — whereas  the  Boards  of 
the  church  were  responsible  to  her,  subject  to  removal  by  her,  had 
it  in  their  power  to  make  themselves  acquainted  with  the  doctrinal 
views  of  their  missionaries,  and  their  whole  proceedings  could  be, 
and  were  reviewed  from  year  to  year.  And  in  fine,  they  pressed 
the  consideration,  that  without  the  organization  plead  for,  a 
large  portion,  probably  more  than  one  half  of  the  Presbyterian 
church,  could  not  be  enlisted  in  the  cause  of  Foreign  Missions. 
But  it  was  all  m  vain — they  were  dryly  told  by  a  leader,  or  raiher 
the  leader,  on  the  other  side,  "  that  the  question  was  one  to  be 
settled  by  a  majority  of  votes;"  and  intimation  was  distinctly  given 
that  thus  was  yet  to  be  decided  the  fate  of  our  Boards  for  Domestic 
Missions  and  Education.  The  question  was  at  length  taken,  and 
the  prediction  uttered  a  few  years  ago,  "that  voluntary  associa- 
tions would  soon  control  our  General  Assemblies,"  was  found  to 
be  already  fulfilled — 106  voted  in  favour  of  the  resolution  to  trans- 
fer the  Western  Foreign  Missionary  Society  to  the  General  As- 
sembly and  110  against  it.  The  following  protest  against  this 
decision  was  presented  : — 

"Tlie  undersigned  do  solemnly  protest  against  thedecision  of  the  General  Assembly, 
■whereby  the  report  of  the  committee  of  the  last  Assembly,  respecting  the  Western 
Foreign  Missionary  Society,  was  rejected  for  the  following  reasons  ;  viz. 

"  1.  Because  we  consider  the  decision  of  the  Assembly  in  this  case,  as  an  unjusti- 
fiable refusal  to  carry  into  eflect  a  solemn  contract  with  the  Synod  of  Pittsburg,  duly 
ratified  and  confirmed  under  the  authority  of  the  last  Assembly. 

"2.  Because  we  are  impressed  with  the  deepest  conviction,  that  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  in  her  ecclesiastical  capacity,  is  bound,  in  obedience  to  the  command  of  her 
divine  Head  and  Lord,  to  send  the  glorious  gospel  as  far  as  may  be  in  her  power,  to 
every  creature  ;  and  we  consider  the  decision  of  the  Assembly  in  this  case,  as  a  direct 
refusal  to  obey  this  command,  and  to  pursue  one  of  the  great  objects  for  which  the 
Church  was  founded. 

"  3.  Because  it  is  our  deliberate  persuasion,  that  a  large  part  of  the  energy,  zeal,  and 
resources  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  cannot  be  called  into  action  in  the  Missionary 
cause  without  the  establishment  of  a  Missionary  Board  by  the  General  Assembly.  It 
is  evident  that  no  other  ecclesiastical  organization,  by  fragments  of  the  church,  can  be 
formed,  which  will  unite,  satisfy,  and  call  forth  the  zealous  co-operation  of  those  in 
every  part  of  the  Church  who  wish  for  a  general  Presbyterian  Board. 

"  4.  Because,  while  the  majority  of  the  Assembly  acknowledged  that  they  had  a  Board 
which  fully  met  all  the  wants  and  wishes  of  themselves,  and  of  those  who  sympathized 
with  them  ; — they  refused  to  make  such  a  decision  as  would  accord  to  us  a  similar  and 
equal  privilege ;  thereby,  as  we  conceive,  refusing  that  which  would  have  been  only 
just  and  equal,  and  rejecting  a  plan  which  would  have  greatly  extended  the  missionary 
spirit,  and  exerted  a  reflex  beneficial  influence  on  the  Churches  thus  indulged  with  a 
Board  agreeable  to  their  views. 

5.  Because,  to  all  these  considerations,  urged  with  solemnity  and  affection,  the  ma- 
jority of  the  Assembly  were  deaf,  and  have  laid  us  under  the  necessity  of  protesting 
against  their  course ;  of  complaining  that  wc  are  denied  a  most  reasonable,  and  to  us 
most  precious  privilege ;  and  of  lamenting  that  we  are  laid  under  the  necessity  of 
resorting  to  plans  of  ecclesiastical  organization,  complicated,  inconvenient,  and  much 
more  adapted,  on  a  variety  of  accounts,  to  interfere  with  ecclesiastical  harmony,  tnan 
the  proposed  Board  would  have  been. 

Pittsburg,  June  dth,  1836. 


Samuel  Miller,  John  Coulter,  Robert  Porter,  A.  R.  Curry,  J.  S.  Weaver,  James 
Lenox,  J.  H.  Symmcs,  Edwin  Downer,  H.  M.  Hopkins,  Clement  Velandinoham, 
George  Bishop,  J.  H.  Gray,  J.  M'Ehoy,  David  M'Kinney,  P.  J.  Sparrow,  E.  W.  Ca- 
ruther?,  Robert  Johnston,  Ct.  W.  Musgrave,  S.  G.  Winchester,  M.  G.  Wallace,  F.  H. 
Porter,  R.  H.  Kilpatrick,  Benjamin  C.  Sv/an,  James  M'Curdy,  Samuel  S.  Davis,  H. 
M.  Koontz,  Samuel  Boyd,  David  Morrow,  John  M.  C.  Bartley,  J.  Bemiss,  Parly  Co- 
burn,  J.  S.  Berryman,  SViliiam  Wallace,  Jacob  F.  Price,  W.  L.  Breckinridge,  J.  Le 
Roy  Davies,  Thomas  L.  Duniap,  James  V.  Henry,  Wm.  Maishall,  Joseph"'Nimmo, 
J.  Stoneroad,  S.  L.  Graham,  John  W.  Cunningham,  Orson  Douglass,  Archibald 
George,  Wm.  P.  Alrich,  Sylvester  Scovel,  Benjamin  F.  Spilman,  ]N.  Ewing,  Charles 
Woodwar!,  J.  R.  Sharon,  S.  B.  Lewers,  James  M'Farren,  R.  Highlanc!s,^Wm.  W. 
Phillips,  Alexander  A.  Campbell,  Samuel  Henderson,  H,  S.  Pratt,  Nathaniel  Todd, 
Evander  M'Nair,  John  Miller,  William  Wallace,  (of  Lancaster,)  James  D,  Ray, 
Alexander  Write,  Jr.,  Archibald  Hanna,  John  Elliott,  Jacob  R.  Castner,  John  Stinson, 
Joseph  Campbell,  James  Kennedy,  David  S.  Tod,  Ananias  Piatt,  Jolinston  Eaton, 
William  Williamson,  John  S.  Gallowav,  John  H.  Culbertson,  Joseph  Harbcson,  John 
H.  Van  Court,  Archibald  M'Callum,  Thomas  A.  Ogden,  Thomas  R.  Borden,  John  R. 
Hutchison,  John  M'Clure,  Isaac  W.  Snovvden,  James  Patterson,  Jr.,  Ellison  Conger, 
James  Alexander. 

Now  from  this  view  of  the  discussion  and  decision  by  the  last  As- 
sembly of  these  two  great  questions,  it  must  be  evident  to  every  one, 
not  merely  that  there  is  in  om"  church  a  strong  party  who  are  op- 
posed to  her  doctrines  and  institutions,  but  that  this  party  begin 
to  feel  conscious  of  their  strength.  This  is  clear  from  many  conside- 
rations, but  from  none  more  so  than  from  then*  boldness.  When 
prudent,  cautious,  cunning  men,  throw  ofl"  the  mask — when  you 
see  such  men,  in  pleading  the  cause  of  a  brother  charged  with 
error  in  fundamental  doctrines,  abandon  the  old  mode  of  defence 
"  its  a  mere  difference  of  words" — "  a  little  explanation  is  all  that  is 
necessary  to  the  entire  agreement  of  the  parties,"  and  openly 
declare  that  "they  approve  not  only  of  the  doctrines"  (taught)  "but 
of  the  language  employed" — when  you  hear  them,  in  discussing  a 
question  of  church  policy,  reply  to  the  arguments  of  men  venerable 
for  their  years  and  distinguished  by  their  talents  and  station,  "the 
question  is  one  to  be  settled  by  a  majority  of  votes" — you  may  rest 
assured  such  men  feel  that  the  days  of  their  minority  are  over  and 
that  they  have  reached  the  years  of  manhood.  In  fact,  survey  the 
course  of  this  party  throughout  the  last  Assembly,  from  their  at- 
tempt, at  its  commencement,  to  place  in  the  chair  to  preside  over 
hundreds  of  Pastors,  a  man  who  has  not  held  the  pastoral  office  for 
ten  or  twelve  years,  down  to  the  hour  of  its  dissolution  ;  survey 
their  entire  course,  and  you  see  little  else  than  the  insolence  of 
conscious  power,  of  supposed,  numerical  strengtlr. 

It  must  be  equally  evident  to  every  one,  that  whatever  strengthy 
whvitevev  power  these  men  have,  they  are  determined  to  exercise  at 
all  hazards.  Stronger  evidence  of  this  could  not  he  given  than 
that  which  has  been  furnished  by  the  doings  of  the  last  Assembly. 
He,  who  ten  years  ago,  would  have  predicted  that  at  this  day  there 
would  be  found  in  our  church,  a  party  who  would  defend  and  sus- 
tain a  man,  who  denied  the  doctrines  of  original  sin,  of  federal 
representation  in  Adam,  and  of  justification  by  faith  in  the  righte- 
ousness of  the  Redeemer  ;  a  party  that  would  refuse  to  us  an  ec- 


40 

clesiastical  organization  for  the  work  of  Foreign  Missions,  and  that 
would  threaten  the  annihilation  of  our  existing  boards — he  who 
ten  years  ago  would  have  uttered  such  a  prediction,  would  have 
been  regarded  as  at  least  partially  insane.  And  yet,  little  prepared 
as  the  public  mind  was  to  expect  such  a  party  in  the  bosom  of  our 
church,  and  such  acts  of  treason  against  her  best  interests,  the  ex- 
istence of  both  is  now  a  matter  of  history.  We  have  then,  not 
merely  a  powerful  party  in  our  church  opposed  to  her  doctrines  and 
institutions,  but  a  party  who  are  conscious  of  their  power,  and  are 
determined  to  exercise  it  all  hazards. 

And  now  the  grand  question  is,  what  is  to  be  done  1  Shall  this 
party  of  foreign  origin,  and  who  in  principle  and  feeling  are  opposed 
to  our  whole  system  of  doctrines  and  government — this  party,  who 
have  come  in  among  us  by  stealth,  and  by  the  divisions  and  strife 
which  they  have  produced,  have  brought  our  beloved  denomination 
into  reproach;  shall  this  party  be  permitted  to  continue  unmolested 
in  the  possession  of  what  they  have  already  gained,  and  unchecked 
in  their  advances  toward  further  conquests'?  Shall  those  who  have 
been  reared  in  the  Presbyterian  church,  or  who  have  connected 
themselves  with  her,  from  a  sincere  attachment  to  her  doctrines 
and  order,  stand  quietly  and  contentedly  by,  while  all  that  is  valu- 
able in  either,  is  trampled  in  the  dust  1  It  cannot  be  !  Fidelity  to 
God,  to  his  truth,  to  our  children  and  to  our  children's  children, 
loudly  and  imperatively  forbids  it.  What  then,  we  again  ask,  is 
to  be  done?  Shall  we  go  on  a  while  longer,  as  Ave  have  been  going 
for  years  past,  biting  and  devouring  one  another,  grieving  each 
others  hearts,  weakening  each  others  hands,  undermining  each 
others  influence,  and  once  a  twelvemonth  exhibiting  ourselves  as 
ecclesiastical  gladiators, for  the  entertainment  of  the  worldling,  and 
to  the  humiliation  of  the  godly  1  The  honour  of  our  Master,  re- 
spect for  ourselves,  and  a  regard  to  the  interests  of  righteousness 
and  holiness,  all  cry  out  against  such  a  course.  Once  more,  there- 
fore, the  question  returns,  what  is  to  be  done  ?  Fathers,  Brethren, 
Fellow  Christians,  whatever  else  may  be  dark,  this  is  clear,  we 
cannot  continue  in  the  same  body.  We  are  not  agreed,  and  it  is 
vain  to  attempt  to  walk  together.  That  those  who  we  regard  as 
the  authors  of  our  present  distractions  will  retrace  their  steps,  is 
not  to  be  expected;  and  that  those  who  have  hitherto  rallied  around 
the  standards  of  our  church  will  continue  to  do  so,  is  both  to  be  ex- 
pected and  desired.  In  some  way  or  other,  therefore,  these  men 
must  be  separated  from  us. 

At  what  time,  or  in  what  manner  this  is  to  be  effected,  it  is  not 
for  us  to  say  ;  nor  will  we  now  undertake,  even  to  suggest.  We 
would  rather,  for  the  present,  solicit  those  whom  we  address,  to 
have  their  attention  turned  to  these  points,  to  make  them  the  sub- 
jects of  their  meditation,  of  their  mutual  conference,  nnd  above  all, 
of  their  earnest  supplication  at  a  throne  of  grace,  for  divine  direc- 
tion, that  the  event  painful  in  itself,  may  not  be  rendered  still  more 


41 

eo,  by  the  nnseasonableness  of  its  occurrence,  or  the  mode  of  its 
accomphshment. 

In  conclusion. — To  those  who  agree  with  us  in  the  general 
views  thrown  out  in  this  paper,  we  would  say — be  firm.  Let  not 
the  temporary  triumph  of  error,  a  triumph  achieved  through 
imrighteous  means,  dishearten  you.  "  Honesty  is  the  best  policy,'* 
and  will  always  be  found  to  be  so  in  the  long  run — be  firm  then. 
We  would  say  to  you  also — be  wary.  Suffer  not  yourselves  to  be 
imposed  upon  by  professions  of  Orthodoxy,  which  are  shown  to  be 
false  by  the  acts  of  those  who  make  them.  Let  not  the  cry  of 
"peace,"  "  peace,"  raised  by  men  who  have  disturbed  the  peace  of 
our  church,  by  trampling  on  her  purity,  mislead  you.  We  love 
peace,  as  much  as  do  these  men,  but  not  peace  at  the  expense  of 
truth.  And  particularly  we  would  say  to  you — abide  at  your 
posts.  In  a  crisis  like  the  present,  for  the  sake  of  ease,  for  the  sake 
of  quiet,  let  no  man  seek  a  connexion  with  other  ecclesiastical 
bodies,  because  by  them  sound  doctrine  is  loved,  and  healthful 
discipline  maintained.  This  were  indeed  an  inglorious  business, 
most  unkind  to  those  who  have  hitherto  stood  side  by  side  with 
you  in  defence  of  the  truth,  and  a  criminal  desertion  of  the  church 
you  have  loved,  and  which,  perhaps,  has  cherished  you,  in  the 
hour  of  her  need. 

That  the  great  Head  of  the  church,  under  the  smiles  of  whose 
benignant  Providence,  we  have,  as  a  denomination,  been  greatly 
prospered,  but  who,  for  our  pride,  and  unfruitfulness,  and  backsliding, 
is  now  visiting  us,  may  overrule  all  our  difficulties  and  troubles,  so 
as  to  promote  his  own  glory,  and  the  welfare  of  immortal  souls,  is 
the  prayer  of  yours  in  the  bonds  of  the  Gospel. 

W.  W.  PHILLIPS, 
JOSEPH  M'ELROY, 
GEORGE  POTTS, 
JOHN  BRECKENRIDGE, 
FRANCIS  M'FARLAND, 
W.  A.  M'DOWELL, 
JOHN  M.  KREBS, 
HENRY  RANKIN, 
HUGH  AUCHINCLOSS, 
JAMES  LENOX. 


